Aloha 32 vs Swan 40 Frers
How do the Aloha 32 and Swan 40 Frers compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Aloha 32 | Aloha 32 | Swan 40 Frers | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.4 ft9.88 m | 32.4 ft9.88 m |
| Waterline length | 25.0 ft7.62 m | 32.4 ft9.88 m |
| Beam | 10.8 ft3.30 m | 12.9 ft3.94 m |
| Draft | 4.8 ft1.45 m | 7.0 ft2.15 m |
| Displacement | 9,800 lb4,445 kg | 19,401 lb8,800 kg |
| Ballast | 4,018 lb1,823 kg | 6,990 lb3,171 kg |
| Sail area | 524 ft²48.7 m² | 830 ft²77.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.31 | 18.39 |
| Displacement / Length | 280 | 254 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.3 | 30.6 |
| Capsize screening | 2.02 | 1.92 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.7 | 7.6 |
Aloha 32 vs Swan 40 Frers: the short version
- The Aloha 32 and Swan 40 Frers are close in length (32.4 ft9.88 m vs 32.4 ft9.88 m ).
- The Swan 40 Frers is heavier, displacing about 98% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 40 Frers carries the more powerful rig (18.4 vs 18.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 40 Frers scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 40 Frers rates better for offshore work (1.92 vs 2.02).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.