Swan 391 vs Swan 82
How do the Swan 391 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 391 
Swan 82 | Swan 391 | Swan 82 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 33.1 ft10.08 m | 69.8 ft21.26 m |
| Waterline length | 33.1 ft10.08 m | 69.8 ft21.26 m |
| Beam | 12.4 ft3.79 m | 19.2 ft5.86 m |
| Draft | 7.2 ft2.19 m | 12.4 ft3.78 m |
| Displacement | 18,900 lb8,573 kg | 83,776 lb38,000 kg |
| Ballast | 6,800 lb3,084 kg | 29,300 lb13,290 kg |
| Sail area | 767 ft²71.3 m² | 3,474 ft²322.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.30 | 29.03 |
| Displacement / Length | 233 | 110 |
| Comfort ratio | 30.8 | 36.2 |
| Capsize screening | 1.87 | 1.76 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.7 | 11.2 |
Swan 391 vs Swan 82: the short version
- The Swan 82 is the larger boat at 69.8 ft21.26 m LOA versus 33.1 ft10.08 m for the Swan 391.
- The Swan 82 is heavier, displacing about 343% 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 17.3), 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 1.87).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.