C&C 110 vs C&C 39
How do the C&C 110 and C&C 39 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 39 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.3 ft11.07 m | 39.3 ft11.96 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 30.5 ft9.30 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 11.5 ft3.51 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 6.3 ft1.91 m |
| Displacement | 10,900 lb4,944 kg | 16,750 lb7,598 kg |
| Ballast | 4,200 lb1,905 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 706 ft²65.6 m² | 726 ft²67.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.98 | 17.74 |
| Displacement / Length | 156 | 264 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.7 | 30.2 |
| Capsize screening | 2.16 | 1.80 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 7.4 |
C&C 110 vs C&C 39: the short version
- The C&C 39 is the larger boat at 39.3 ft11.96 m LOA versus 36.3 ft11.07 m for the C&C 110.
- The C&C 39 is heavier, displacing about 54% 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 17.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 39 rates better for offshore work (1.80 vs 2.16).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.