Catalina 38 vs Landfall 39
How do the Catalina 38 and Landfall 39 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Catalina 38 | Catalina 38 | Landfall 39 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.1 ft11.91 m | 39.2 ft11.94 m |
| Waterline length | 30.3 ft9.22 m | 30.6 ft9.32 m |
| Beam | 11.8 ft3.61 m | 11.5 ft3.51 m |
| Draft | 6.8 ft2.07 m | 5.6 ft1.70 m |
| Displacement | 15,900 lb7,212 kg | 23,500 lb10,659 kg |
| Ballast | 6,850 lb3,107 kg | 8,800 lb3,992 kg |
| Sail area | 639 ft²59.4 m² | 811 ft²75.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.17 | 15.82 |
| Displacement / Length | 256 | 367 |
| Comfort ratio | 27.8 | 42.4 |
| Capsize screening | 1.88 | 1.61 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.4 |
Catalina 38 vs Landfall 39: the short version
- The Catalina 38 and Landfall 39 are close in length (39.1 ft11.91 m vs 39.2 ft11.94 m ).
- The Landfall 39 is heavier, displacing about 48% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Catalina 38 carries the more powerful rig (16.2 vs 15.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Landfall 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 39 rates better for offshore work (1.61 vs 1.88).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.