C&C 101 vs Landfall 35
How do the C&C 101 and Landfall 35 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 101 | C&C 101 | Landfall 35 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.8 ft10.00 m | 34.9 ft10.64 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 26.8 ft8.15 m |
| Beam | 11.0 ft3.34 m | 10.7 ft3.25 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 4.8 ft1.47 m |
| Displacement | 8,100 lb3,674 kg | 13,000 lb5,897 kg |
| Ballast | 3,351 lb1,520 kg | 5,500 lb2,495 kg |
| Sail area | 613 ft²56.9 m² | 517 ft²48.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 24.32 | 14.96 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 303 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 29.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.18 | 1.82 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.9 |
C&C 101 vs Landfall 35: the short version
- The Landfall 35 is the larger boat at 34.9 ft10.64 m LOA versus 32.8 ft10.00 m for the C&C 101.
- The Landfall 35 is heavier, displacing about 60% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 101 carries the more powerful rig (24.3 vs 15.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 35 rates better for offshore work (1.82 vs 2.18).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.