Landfall 48 vs Swan 65
How do the Landfall 48 and Swan 65 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Landfall 48 | Landfall 48 | Swan 65 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 47.5 ft14.48 m | 47.0 ft14.33 m |
| Waterline length | 37.3 ft11.38 m | 47.0 ft14.33 m |
| Beam | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 16.3 ft4.98 m |
| Draft | 6.6 ft2.01 m | 9.5 ft2.90 m |
| Displacement | 31,600 lb14,334 kg | 70,107 lb31,800 kg |
| Ballast | 12,300 lb5,579 kg | 22,928 lb10,400 kg |
| Sail area | 960 ft²89.2 m² | —— |
| SA / Displacement | 15.37 | — |
| Displacement / Length | 271 | 301 |
| Comfort ratio | 36.0 | 55.8 |
| Capsize screening | 1.77 | 1.59 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.2 | 9.2 |
Landfall 48 vs Swan 65: the short version
- The Landfall 48 and Swan 65 are close in length (47.5 ft14.48 m vs 47.0 ft14.33 m ).
- The Swan 65 is heavier, displacing about 122% 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 1.77).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.