Swan 391 vs Swan 46 Mk II
How do the Swan 391 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.
Swan 391 
Swan 46 Mk II | Swan 391 | Swan 46 Mk II | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 33.1 ft10.08 m | 37.9 ft11.55 m |
| Waterline length | 33.1 ft10.08 m | 37.9 ft11.55 m |
| Beam | 12.4 ft3.79 m | 14.5 ft4.41 m |
| Draft | 7.2 ft2.19 m | 8.9 ft2.70 m |
| Displacement | 18,900 lb8,573 kg | 31,306 lb14,200 kg |
| Ballast | 6,800 lb3,084 kg | 11,400 lb5,171 kg |
| Sail area | 767 ft²71.3 m² | 978 ft²90.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.30 | 15.75 |
| Displacement / Length | 233 | 257 |
| Comfort ratio | 30.8 | 36.4 |
| Capsize screening | 1.87 | 1.84 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.7 | 8.2 |
Swan 391 vs Swan 46 Mk II: the short version
- The Swan 46 Mk II is the larger boat at 37.9 ft11.55 m LOA versus 33.1 ft10.08 m for the Swan 391.
- The Swan 46 Mk II is heavier, displacing about 66% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 391 carries the more powerful rig (17.3 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 Swan 46 Mk II rates better for offshore work (1.84 vs 1.87).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.