Hunter 45 vs Swan 65
How do the Hunter 45 and Swan 65 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 45 | Hunter 45 | Swan 65 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 46.7 ft14.23 m | 47.0 ft14.33 m |
| Waterline length | 39.6 ft12.06 m | 47.0 ft14.33 m |
| Beam | 13.8 ft4.22 m | 16.3 ft4.98 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 9.5 ft2.90 m |
| Displacement | 22,450 lb10,183 kg | 70,107 lb31,800 kg |
| Ballast | 10,600 lb4,808 kg | 22,928 lb10,400 kg |
| Sail area | 922 ft²85.7 m² | —— |
| SA / Displacement | 18.54 | — |
| Displacement / Length | 162 | 301 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.2 | 55.8 |
| Capsize screening | 1.96 | 1.59 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.4 | 9.2 |
Hunter 45 vs Swan 65: the short version
- The Hunter 45 and Swan 65 are close in length (46.7 ft14.23 m vs 47.0 ft14.33 m ).
- The Swan 65 is heavier, displacing about 212% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- The Swan 65 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 65 rates better for offshore work (1.59 vs 1.96).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.