Landfall 42 vs Landfall 43
How do the Landfall 42 and Landfall 43 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Landfall 42 | Landfall 42 | Landfall 43 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.7 ft12.70 m | 42.1 ft12.83 m |
| Waterline length | 30.0 ft9.14 m | 34.4 ft10.49 m |
| Beam | 12.5 ft3.81 m | 12.6 ft3.85 m |
| Draft | 5.0 ft1.52 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 21,000 lb9,525 kg | 24,600 lb11,158 kg |
| Ballast | 8,800 lb3,992 kg | 9,075 lb4,116 kg |
| Sail area | 709 ft²65.9 m² | 771 ft²71.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.90 | 14.58 |
| Displacement / Length | 347 | 269 |
| Comfort ratio | 33.5 | 35.4 |
| Capsize screening | 1.81 | 1.74 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.3 | 7.9 |
Landfall 42 vs Landfall 43: the short version
- The Landfall 42 and Landfall 43 are close in length (41.7 ft12.70 m vs 42.1 ft12.83 m ).
- The Landfall 43 is heavier, displacing about 17% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Landfall 42 carries the more powerful rig (14.9 vs 14.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Landfall 43 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 43 rates better for offshore work (1.74 vs 1.81).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.