C&C 110 vs C&C 131
How do the C&C 110 and C&C 131 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 110 | C&C 110 | C&C 131 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.3 ft11.07 m | 43.0 ft13.10 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 37.2 ft11.35 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 13.0 ft3.95 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 8.7 ft2.65 m |
| Displacement | 10,900 lb4,944 kg | 16,975 lb7,700 kg |
| Ballast | 4,200 lb1,905 kg | 6,790 lb3,080 kg |
| Sail area | 706 ft²65.6 m² | 889 ft²82.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.98 | 21.54 |
| Displacement / Length | 156 | 147 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.7 | 22.2 |
| Capsize screening | 2.16 | 2.02 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 8.2 |
C&C 110 vs C&C 131: the short version
- The C&C 131 is the larger boat at 43.0 ft13.10 m LOA versus 36.3 ft11.07 m for the C&C 110.
- The C&C 131 is heavier, displacing about 56% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 110 carries the more powerful rig (23.0 vs 21.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 131 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 131 rates better for offshore work (2.02 vs 2.16).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.