C&C 110 vs C&C 27
How do the C&C 110 and C&C 27 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 27 | C&C 110 | C&C 27 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.3 ft11.07 m | 27.9 ft8.49 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 22.9 ft6.97 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 9.2 ft2.79 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 4.3 ft1.30 m |
| Displacement | 10,900 lb4,944 kg | 5,500 lb2,495 kg |
| Ballast | 4,200 lb1,905 kg | 2,116 lb960 kg |
| Sail area | 706 ft²65.6 m² | 362 ft²33.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.98 | 18.59 |
| Displacement / Length | 156 | 206 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.7 | 18.3 |
| Capsize screening | 2.16 | 2.08 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 6.4 |
C&C 110 vs C&C 27: the short version
- The C&C 110 is the larger boat at 36.3 ft11.07 m LOA versus 27.9 ft8.49 m for the C&C 27.
- The C&C 110 is heavier, displacing about 98% 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 18.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 110 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 27 rates better for offshore work (2.08 vs 2.16).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.