Mirage 32 vs Mirage 33
How do the Mirage 32 and Mirage 33 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Mirage 32 | Mirage 32 | Mirage 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 33.5 ft10.21 m |
| Waterline length | 26.0 ft7.92 m | 26.8 ft8.15 m |
| Beam | 10.5 ft3.20 m | 11.7 ft3.56 m |
| Draft | 4.8 ft1.47 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 8,000 lb3,629 kg | 9,300 lb4,218 kg |
| Ballast | 2,800 lb1,270 kg | 3,500 lb1,588 kg |
| Sail area | 433 ft²40.2 m² | 468 ft²43.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.32 | 16.93 |
| Displacement / Length | 203 | 217 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.4 | 18.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.10 | 2.22 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.8 | 6.9 |
Mirage 32 vs Mirage 33: the short version
- The Mirage 33 is the larger boat at 33.5 ft10.21 m LOA versus 32.0 ft9.75 m for the Mirage 32.
- The Mirage 33 is heavier, displacing about 16% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Mirage 32 carries the more powerful rig (17.3 vs 16.9), 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 2.22).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.