Etchells vs Swan 41
How do the Etchells and Swan 41 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Etchells 
Swan 41 | Etchells | Swan 41 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 30.2 ft9.20 m | 30.3 ft9.22 m |
| Waterline length | 22.0 ft6.71 m | 30.3 ft9.22 m |
| Beam | 6.9 ft2.10 m | 11.9 ft3.64 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 6.9 ft2.10 m |
| Displacement | 3,325 lb1,508 kg | 23,810 lb10,800 kg |
| Ballast | 2,175 lb987 kg | 9,700 lb4,400 kg |
| Sail area | 297 ft²27.6 m² | 794 ft²73.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.33 | 15.35 |
| Displacement / Length | 139 | 384 |
| Comfort ratio | 16.1 | 44.7 |
| Capsize screening | 1.85 | 1.66 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.3 | 7.4 |
Etchells vs Swan 41: the short version
- The Etchells and Swan 41 are close in length (30.2 ft9.20 m vs 30.3 ft9.22 m ).
- The Swan 41 is heavier, displacing about 616% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Etchells carries the more powerful rig (21.3 vs 15.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 41 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 41 rates better for offshore work (1.66 vs 1.85).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.