ClubSwan 42 vs Swan 391
How do the ClubSwan 42 and Swan 391 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
ClubSwan 42 
Swan 391 | ClubSwan 42 | Swan 391 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 37.0 ft11.29 m | 33.1 ft10.08 m |
| Waterline length | 37.0 ft11.29 m | 33.1 ft10.08 m |
| Beam | 12.9 ft3.93 m | 12.4 ft3.79 m |
| Draft | 8.9 ft2.70 m | 7.2 ft2.19 m |
| Displacement | 16,865 lb7,650 kg | 18,900 lb8,573 kg |
| Ballast | 7,046 lb3,196 kg | 6,800 lb3,084 kg |
| Sail area | 1,176 ft²109.3 m² | 767 ft²71.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 28.61 | 17.30 |
| Displacement / Length | 148 | 233 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.4 | 30.8 |
| Capsize screening | 2.01 | 1.87 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.2 | 7.7 |
ClubSwan 42 vs Swan 391: the short version
- The ClubSwan 42 is the larger boat at 37.0 ft11.29 m LOA versus 33.1 ft10.08 m for the Swan 391.
- The Swan 391 is heavier, displacing about 12% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the ClubSwan 42 carries the more powerful rig (28.6 vs 17.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 391 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 391 rates better for offshore work (1.87 vs 2.01).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.