Swan 46 Mk III vs Swan 65
How do the Swan 46 Mk III and Swan 65 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Swan 46 Mk III 
Swan 65 | Swan 46 Mk III | Swan 65 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 46.6 ft14.20 m | 47.0 ft14.33 m |
| Waterline length | 39.6 ft12.06 m | 47.0 ft14.33 m |
| Beam | 14.0 ft4.26 m | 16.3 ft4.98 m |
| Draft | 7.2 ft2.20 m | 9.5 ft2.90 m |
| Displacement | 32,408 lb14,700 kg | 70,107 lb31,800 kg |
| Ballast | 12,125 lb5,500 kg | 22,928 lb10,400 kg |
| Sail area | 1,179 ft²109.5 m² | —— |
| SA / Displacement | 18.56 | — |
| Displacement / Length | 234 | 301 |
| Comfort ratio | 35.8 | 55.8 |
| Capsize screening | 1.75 | 1.59 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.4 | 9.2 |
Swan 46 Mk III vs Swan 65: the short version
- The Swan 46 Mk III and Swan 65 are close in length (46.6 ft14.20 m vs 47.0 ft14.33 m ).
- The Swan 65 is heavier, displacing about 116% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- The Swan 65 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 65 rates better for offshore work (1.59 vs 1.75).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.