Creekmore 34 vs Swan 42
How do the Creekmore 34 and Swan 42 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Creekmore 34 
Swan 42 | Creekmore 34 | Swan 42 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 34.0 ft10.36 m | 34.0 ft10.35 m |
| Waterline length | 29.5 ft8.99 m | 34.0 ft10.35 m |
| Beam | 11.5 ft3.51 m | 13.0 ft3.95 m |
| Draft | 4.9 ft1.49 m | 7.9 ft2.40 m |
| Displacement | 17,000 lb7,711 kg | 23,810 lb10,800 kg |
| Ballast | 7,000 lb3,175 kg | 9,200 lb4,173 kg |
| Sail area | 589 ft²54.7 m² | 1,029 ft²95.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.25 | 19.89 |
| Displacement / Length | 296 | 271 |
| Comfort ratio | 32.9 | 35.7 |
| Capsize screening | 1.79 | 1.80 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.3 | 7.8 |
Creekmore 34 vs Swan 42: the short version
- The Creekmore 34 and Swan 42 are close in length (34.0 ft10.36 m vs 34.0 ft10.35 m ).
- The Swan 42 is heavier, displacing about 40% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 42 carries the more powerful rig (19.9 vs 14.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 42 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Creekmore 34 rates better for offshore work (1.79 vs 1.80).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.