Swan 36 Frers vs Swan 371
How do the Swan 36 Frers and Swan 371 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Swan 36 Frers 
Swan 371 | Swan 36 Frers | Swan 371 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.7 ft9.06 m | 29.7 ft9.06 m |
| Waterline length | 29.7 ft9.06 m | 29.7 ft9.06 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.65 m | 11.3 ft3.46 m |
| Draft | 6.9 ft2.11 m | 6.8 ft2.07 m |
| Displacement | 14,771 lb6,700 kg | 16,100 lb7,303 kg |
| Ballast | 5,600 lb2,540 kg | 5,701 lb2,586 kg |
| Sail area | 624 ft²58.0 m² | 597 ft²55.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.58 | 14.98 |
| Displacement / Length | 251 | 274 |
| Comfort ratio | 28.1 | 32.9 |
| Capsize screening | 1.95 | 1.80 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.3 | 7.3 |
Swan 36 Frers vs Swan 371: the short version
- The Swan 36 Frers and Swan 371 are close in length (29.7 ft9.06 m vs 29.7 ft9.06 m ).
- The Swan 371 is heavier, displacing about 9% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 36 Frers carries the more powerful rig (16.6 vs 15.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 371 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 371 rates better for offshore work (1.80 vs 1.95).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.