Roue 20 vs Swan 43
How do the Roue 20 and Swan 43 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Roue 20 
Swan 43 | Roue 20 | Swan 43 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.0 ft9.45 m | 31.0 ft9.45 m |
| Waterline length | 21.0 ft6.40 m | 31.0 ft9.45 m |
| Beam | 8.0 ft2.44 m | 11.7 ft3.55 m |
| Draft | 4.2 ft1.28 m | 7.2 ft2.20 m |
| Displacement | 4,700 lb2,132 kg | 22,531 lb10,220 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 10,400 lb4,717 kg |
| Sail area | 382 ft²35.5 m² | 821 ft²76.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.78 | 16.47 |
| Displacement / Length | 227 | 338 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.0 | 42.7 |
| Capsize screening | 1.91 | 1.65 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.1 | 7.5 |
Roue 20 vs Swan 43: the short version
- The Roue 20 and Swan 43 are close in length (31.0 ft9.45 m vs 31.0 ft9.45 m ).
- The Swan 43 is heavier, displacing about 379% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Roue 20 carries the more powerful rig (21.8 vs 16.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 43 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 43 rates better for offshore work (1.65 vs 1.91).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.