C&C 115 vs Landfall 38
How do the C&C 115 and Landfall 38 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 115 
Landfall 38 | C&C 115 | Landfall 38 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 37.8 ft11.51 m | 37.6 ft11.45 m |
| Waterline length | 33.0 ft10.06 m | 30.2 ft9.20 m |
| Beam | 11.9 ft3.63 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 6.7 ft2.03 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 11,800 lb5,352 kg | 16,700 lb7,575 kg |
| Ballast | 4,200 lb1,905 kg | 6,500 lb2,948 kg |
| Sail area | 781 ft²72.6 m² | 648 ft²60.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 24.11 | 15.87 |
| Displacement / Length | 147 | 271 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.5 | 29.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.09 | 1.88 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.7 | 7.4 |
C&C 115 vs Landfall 38: the short version
- The C&C 115 and Landfall 38 are close in length (37.8 ft11.51 m vs 37.6 ft11.45 m ).
- The Landfall 38 is heavier, displacing about 42% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 115 carries the more powerful rig (24.1 vs 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Landfall 38 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 38 rates better for offshore work (1.88 vs 2.09).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.