Swan 391 vs Swan 61
How do the Swan 391 and Swan 61 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Swan 391 
Swan 61 | Swan 391 | Swan 61 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 33.1 ft10.08 m | 48.2 ft14.68 m |
| Waterline length | 33.1 ft10.08 m | 48.2 ft14.68 m |
| Beam | 12.4 ft3.79 m | 16.4 ft5.00 m |
| Draft | 7.2 ft2.19 m | 10.2 ft3.10 m |
| Displacement | 18,900 lb8,573 kg | 61,068 lb27,700 kg |
| Ballast | 6,800 lb3,084 kg | 20,300 lb9,208 kg |
| Sail area | 767 ft²71.3 m² | 1,656 ft²153.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.30 | 17.09 |
| Displacement / Length | 233 | 244 |
| Comfort ratio | 30.8 | 47.3 |
| Capsize screening | 1.87 | 1.67 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.7 | 9.3 |
Swan 391 vs Swan 61: the short version
- The Swan 61 is the larger boat at 48.2 ft14.68 m LOA versus 33.1 ft10.08 m for the Swan 391.
- The Swan 61 is heavier, displacing about 223% 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 17.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 61 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 61 rates better for offshore work (1.67 vs 1.87).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.