C&C 131 vs Landfall 35
How do the C&C 131 and Landfall 35 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 | Landfall 35 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 43.0 ft13.10 m | 34.9 ft10.64 m |
| Waterline length | 37.2 ft11.35 m | 26.8 ft8.15 m |
| Beam | 13.0 ft3.95 m | 10.7 ft3.25 m |
| Draft | 8.7 ft2.65 m | 4.8 ft1.47 m |
| Displacement | 16,975 lb7,700 kg | 13,000 lb5,897 kg |
| Ballast | 6,790 lb3,080 kg | 5,500 lb2,495 kg |
| Sail area | 889 ft²82.6 m² | 517 ft²48.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.54 | 14.96 |
| Displacement / Length | 147 | 303 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.2 | 29.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.02 | 1.82 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.2 | 6.9 |
C&C 131 vs Landfall 35: the short version
- The C&C 131 is the larger boat at 43.0 ft13.10 m LOA versus 34.9 ft10.64 m for the Landfall 35.
- The C&C 131 is heavier, displacing about 31% 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 15.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Landfall 35 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 35 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.