Swan 371 vs Swan 62
How do the Swan 371 and Swan 62 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Swan 371 
Swan 62 | Swan 371 | Swan 62 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.7 ft9.06 m | 52.2 ft15.90 m |
| Waterline length | 29.7 ft9.06 m | 52.2 ft15.90 m |
| Beam | 11.3 ft3.46 m | 17.5 ft5.34 m |
| Draft | 6.8 ft2.07 m | 9.8 ft3.00 m |
| Displacement | 16,100 lb7,303 kg | 62,832 lb28,500 kg |
| Ballast | 5,701 lb2,586 kg | 24,692 lb11,200 kg |
| Sail area | 597 ft²55.5 m² | 2,392 ft²222.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.98 | 24.22 |
| Displacement / Length | 274 | 198 |
| Comfort ratio | 32.9 | 41.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.80 | 1.76 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.3 | 9.7 |
Swan 371 vs Swan 62: the short version
- The Swan 62 is the larger boat at 52.2 ft15.90 m LOA versus 29.7 ft9.06 m for the Swan 371.
- The Swan 62 is heavier, displacing about 290% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 62 carries the more powerful rig (24.2 vs 15.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 62 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 62 rates better for offshore work (1.76 vs 1.80).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.