Shannon 38 vs Swan 46 Mk I
How do the Shannon 38 and Swan 46 Mk I compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Shannon 38 | Shannon 38 | Swan 46 Mk I | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 37.8 ft11.51 m | 37.9 ft11.55 m |
| Waterline length | 29.2 ft8.89 m | 37.9 ft11.55 m |
| Beam | 11.5 ft3.51 m | 14.5 ft4.41 m |
| Draft | 5.0 ft1.52 m | 8.2 ft2.50 m |
| Displacement | 18,500 lb8,391 kg | 31,306 lb14,200 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 11,400 lb5,171 kg |
| Sail area | 728 ft²67.6 m² | 978 ft²90.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.65 | 15.75 |
| Displacement / Length | 333 | 257 |
| Comfort ratio | 34.8 | 36.4 |
| Capsize screening | 1.74 | 1.84 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.2 | 8.2 |
Shannon 38 vs Swan 46 Mk I: the short version
- The Shannon 38 and Swan 46 Mk I are close in length (37.8 ft11.51 m vs 37.9 ft11.55 m ).
- The Swan 46 Mk I is heavier, displacing about 69% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Shannon 38 carries the more powerful rig (16.7 vs 15.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 46 Mk I scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Shannon 38 rates better for offshore work (1.74 vs 1.84).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.