Alajuela 38 vs Swan 46 Mk I
How do the Alajuela 38 and Swan 46 Mk I compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Alajuela 38 | Alajuela 38 | Swan 46 Mk I | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 38.0 ft11.58 m | 37.9 ft11.55 m |
| Waterline length | 32.6 ft9.93 m | 37.9 ft11.55 m |
| Beam | 11.5 ft3.51 m | 14.5 ft4.41 m |
| Draft | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 8.2 ft2.50 m |
| Displacement | 27,000 lb12,247 kg | 31,306 lb14,200 kg |
| Ballast | 10,000 lb4,536 kg | 11,400 lb5,171 kg |
| Sail area | 837 ft²77.8 m² | 978 ft²90.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.88 | 15.75 |
| Displacement / Length | 349 | 257 |
| Comfort ratio | 47.2 | 36.4 |
| Capsize screening | 1.53 | 1.84 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.6 | 8.2 |
Alajuela 38 vs Swan 46 Mk I: the short version
- The Alajuela 38 and Swan 46 Mk I are close in length (38.0 ft11.58 m vs 37.9 ft11.55 m ).
- The Swan 46 Mk I is heavier, displacing about 16% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 46 Mk I carries the more powerful rig (15.8 vs 14.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Alajuela 38 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Alajuela 38 rates better for offshore work (1.53 vs 1.84).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.