Shannon 38 vs Swan 46 Mk II
How do the Shannon 38 and Swan 46 Mk II 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 II | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 8.9 ft2.70 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 II: the short version
- The Shannon 38 and Swan 46 Mk II are close in length (37.8 ft11.51 m vs 37.9 ft11.55 m ).
- The Swan 46 Mk II 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 II 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.