Swan 39 vs Swan 82
How do the Swan 39 and Swan 82 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Swan 39 | Swan 39 | Swan 82 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 69.8 ft21.26 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 69.8 ft21.26 m |
| Beam | 12.5 ft3.81 m | 19.2 ft5.86 m |
| Draft | 7.2 ft2.19 m | 12.4 ft3.78 m |
| Displacement | 18,001 lb8,165 kg | 83,776 lb38,000 kg |
| Ballast | 7,900 lb3,583 kg | 29,300 lb13,290 kg |
| Sail area | 761 ft²70.7 m² | 3,474 ft²322.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.73 | 29.03 |
| Displacement / Length | 257 | 110 |
| Comfort ratio | 30.6 | 36.2 |
| Capsize screening | 1.91 | 1.76 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 11.2 |
Swan 39 vs Swan 82: the short version
- The Swan 82 is the larger boat at 69.8 ft21.26 m LOA versus 31.5 ft9.60 m for the Swan 39.
- The Swan 82 is heavier, displacing about 365% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 82 carries the more powerful rig (29.0 vs 17.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 82 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 82 rates better for offshore work (1.76 vs 1.91).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.