C&C 110 vs Landfall 42
How do the C&C 110 and Landfall 42 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 | Landfall 42 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.3 ft11.07 m | 41.7 ft12.70 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 30.0 ft9.14 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 12.5 ft3.81 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 10,900 lb4,944 kg | 21,000 lb9,525 kg |
| Ballast | 4,200 lb1,905 kg | 8,800 lb3,992 kg |
| Sail area | 706 ft²65.6 m² | 709 ft²65.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.98 | 14.90 |
| Displacement / Length | 156 | 347 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.7 | 33.5 |
| Capsize screening | 2.16 | 1.81 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 7.3 |
C&C 110 vs Landfall 42: the short version
- The Landfall 42 is the larger boat at 41.7 ft12.70 m LOA versus 36.3 ft11.07 m for the C&C 110.
- The Landfall 42 is heavier, displacing about 93% 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 14.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Landfall 42 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 42 rates better for offshore work (1.81 vs 2.16).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.