Swan 80 vs Swan 86
How do the Swan 80 and Swan 86 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Swan 80 | Swan 80 | Swan 86 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 69.3 ft21.12 m | 69.2 ft21.10 m |
| Waterline length | 69.3 ft21.12 m | 69.2 ft21.10 m |
| Beam | 19.1 ft5.82 m | 20.3 ft6.20 m |
| Draft | 13.8 ft4.20 m | 11.5 ft3.50 m |
| Displacement | 80,910 lb36,700 kg | 121,254 lb55,000 kg |
| Ballast | 33,100 lb15,014 kg | 44,000 lb19,958 kg |
| Sail area | 3,324 ft²308.8 m² | 3,058 ft²284.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 28.43 | 19.97 |
| Displacement / Length | 109 | 163 |
| Comfort ratio | 35.6 | 49.0 |
| Capsize screening | 1.77 | 1.64 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 11.2 | 11.1 |
Swan 80 vs Swan 86: the short version
- The Swan 80 and Swan 86 are close in length (69.3 ft21.12 m vs 69.2 ft21.10 m ).
- The Swan 86 is heavier, displacing about 50% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 80 carries the more powerful rig (28.4 vs 20.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 86 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 86 rates better for offshore work (1.64 vs 1.77).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.