Dickerson 41 vs Swan 48 Frers
How do the Dickerson 41 and Swan 48 Frers compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Dickerson 41 
Swan 48 Frers | Dickerson 41 | Swan 48 Frers | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.0 ft12.50 m | 41.0 ft12.50 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 41.0 ft12.50 m |
| Beam | 12.5 ft3.81 m | 14.2 ft4.32 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 7.8 ft2.38 m |
| Displacement | 24,500 lb11,113 kg | 31,526 lb14,300 kg |
| Ballast | 8,500 lb3,856 kg | 12,100 lb5,488 kg |
| Sail area | 753 ft²70.0 m² | 1,142 ft²106.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.28 | 18.31 |
| Displacement / Length | 350 | 204 |
| Comfort ratio | 38.1 | 34.8 |
| Capsize screening | 1.72 | 1.79 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 8.6 |
Dickerson 41 vs Swan 48 Frers: the short version
- The Dickerson 41 and Swan 48 Frers are close in length (41.0 ft12.50 m vs 41.0 ft12.50 m ).
- The Swan 48 Frers is heavier, displacing about 29% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 48 Frers carries the more powerful rig (18.3 vs 14.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Dickerson 41 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Dickerson 41 rates better for offshore work (1.72 vs 1.79).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.