C&C 131 vs C&C Landfall 39
How do the C&C 131 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 131 | C&C 131 | C&C Landfall 39 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 43.0 ft13.10 m | 38.8 ft11.81 m |
| Waterline length | 37.2 ft11.35 m | 31.0 ft9.45 m |
| Beam | 13.0 ft3.95 m | 12.2 ft3.73 m |
| Draft | 8.7 ft2.65 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 16,975 lb7,700 kg | 19,497 lb8,844 kg |
| Ballast | 6,790 lb3,080 kg | 6,248 lb2,834 kg |
| Sail area | 889 ft²82.6 m² | 667 ft²62.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.54 | 14.73 |
| Displacement / Length | 147 | 292 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.2 | 32.2 |
| Capsize screening | 2.02 | 1.82 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.2 | 7.5 |
C&C 131 vs C&C Landfall 39: the short version
- The C&C 131 is the larger boat at 43.0 ft13.10 m LOA versus 38.8 ft11.81 m for the C&C Landfall 39.
- The C&C Landfall 39 is heavier, displacing about 15% 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 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 2.02).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.