C&C 131 vs C&C 43-2
How do the C&C 131 and C&C 43-2 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 131 | C&C 131 | C&C 43-2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 43.0 ft13.10 m | 43.0 ft13.11 m |
| Waterline length | 37.2 ft11.35 m | 34.7 ft10.57 m |
| Beam | 13.0 ft3.95 m | 13.8 ft4.22 m |
| Draft | 8.7 ft2.65 m | 8.1 ft2.47 m |
| Displacement | 16,975 lb7,700 kg | 18,900 lb8,573 kg |
| Ballast | 6,790 lb3,080 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 889 ft²82.6 m² | 847 ft²78.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.54 | 19.10 |
| Displacement / Length | 147 | 202 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.2 | 23.8 |
| Capsize screening | 2.02 | 2.08 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.2 | 7.9 |
C&C 131 vs C&C 43-2: the short version
- The C&C 131 and C&C 43-2 are close in length (43.0 ft13.10 m vs 43.0 ft13.11 m ).
- The C&C 43-2 is heavier, displacing about 11% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 131 carries the more powerful rig (21.5 vs 19.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 43-2 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 131 rates better for offshore work (2.02 vs 2.08).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.