C&C 110 vs C&C Landfall 39
How do the C&C 110 and C&C Landfall 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 Landfall 39 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.3 ft11.07 m | 38.8 ft11.81 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 31.0 ft9.45 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 12.2 ft3.73 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 10,900 lb4,944 kg | 19,497 lb8,844 kg |
| Ballast | 4,200 lb1,905 kg | 6,248 lb2,834 kg |
| Sail area | 706 ft²65.6 m² | 667 ft²62.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.98 | 14.73 |
| Displacement / Length | 156 | 292 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.7 | 32.2 |
| Capsize screening | 2.16 | 1.82 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 7.5 |
C&C 110 vs C&C Landfall 39: the short version
- The C&C Landfall 39 is the larger boat at 38.8 ft11.81 m LOA versus 36.3 ft11.07 m for the C&C 110.
- The C&C Landfall 39 is heavier, displacing about 79% 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 14.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C Landfall 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C Landfall 39 rates better for offshore work (1.82 vs 2.16).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.