Birdie 32 vs Swan 371
How do the Birdie 32 and Swan 371 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Birdie 32 
Swan 371 | Birdie 32 | Swan 371 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.7 ft9.04 m | 29.7 ft9.06 m |
| Waterline length | 26.4 ft8.06 m | 29.7 ft9.06 m |
| Beam | 10.5 ft3.20 m | 11.3 ft3.46 m |
| Draft | 5.6 ft1.70 m | 6.8 ft2.07 m |
| Displacement | 7,716 lb3,500 kg | 16,100 lb7,303 kg |
| Ballast | 3,527 lb1,600 kg | 5,701 lb2,586 kg |
| Sail area | 517 ft²48.0 m² | 597 ft²55.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.18 | 14.98 |
| Displacement / Length | 186 | 274 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.0 | 32.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.13 | 1.80 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 7.3 |
| Average used price | €13,000 | — |
Birdie 32 vs Swan 371: the short version
- The Birdie 32 and Swan 371 are close in length (29.7 ft9.04 m vs 29.7 ft9.06 m ).
- The Swan 371 is heavier, displacing about 109% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Birdie 32 carries the more powerful rig (21.2 vs 15.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 371 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 371 rates better for offshore work (1.80 vs 2.13).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.