Alajuela 38 vs Swan 46 Mk II
How do the Alajuela 38 and Swan 46 Mk II 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 II | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 8.9 ft2.70 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 II: the short version
- The Alajuela 38 and Swan 46 Mk II are close in length (38.0 ft11.58 m vs 37.9 ft11.55 m ).
- The Swan 46 Mk II is heavier, displacing about 16% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 46 Mk II 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.