Cal 39 vs C&C Landfall 39
How do the Cal 39 and C&C Landfall 39 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Cal 39 | Cal 39 | C&C Landfall 39 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 38.7 ft11.79 m | 38.8 ft11.81 m |
| Waterline length | 31.3 ft9.53 m | 31.0 ft9.45 m |
| Beam | 11.7 ft3.56 m | 12.2 ft3.73 m |
| Draft | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 14,600 lb6,622 kg | 19,497 lb8,844 kg |
| Ballast | 6,600 lb2,994 kg | 6,248 lb2,834 kg |
| Sail area | 738 ft²68.6 m² | 667 ft²62.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 19.77 | 14.73 |
| Displacement / Length | 214 | 292 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.6 | 32.2 |
| Capsize screening | 1.91 | 1.82 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 7.5 |
Cal 39 vs C&C Landfall 39: the short version
- The Cal 39 and C&C Landfall 39 are close in length (38.7 ft11.79 m vs 38.8 ft11.81 m ).
- The C&C Landfall 39 is heavier, displacing about 34% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Cal 39 carries the more powerful rig (19.8 vs 14.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C Landfall 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C Landfall 39 rates better for offshore work (1.82 vs 1.91).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.