Alberg 30 vs Swan 41
How do the Alberg 30 and Swan 41 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Alberg 30 
Swan 41 | Alberg 30 | Swan 41 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 30.3 ft9.23 m | 30.3 ft9.22 m |
| Waterline length | 21.7 ft6.61 m | 30.3 ft9.22 m |
| Beam | 8.8 ft2.67 m | 11.9 ft3.64 m |
| Draft | 4.3 ft1.31 m | 6.9 ft2.10 m |
| Displacement | 9,000 lb4,082 kg | 23,810 lb10,800 kg |
| Ballast | 3,300 lb1,497 kg | 9,700 lb4,400 kg |
| Sail area | 410 ft²38.1 m² | 794 ft²73.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.16 | 15.35 |
| Displacement / Length | 395 | 384 |
| Comfort ratio | 31.9 | 44.7 |
| Capsize screening | 1.68 | 1.66 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.2 | 7.4 |
Alberg 30 vs Swan 41: the short version
- The Alberg 30 and Swan 41 are close in length (30.3 ft9.23 m vs 30.3 ft9.22 m ).
- The Swan 41 is heavier, displacing about 165% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 41 carries the more powerful rig (15.3 vs 15.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 41 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 41 rates better for offshore work (1.66 vs 1.68).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.