C&C 131 vs Landfall 42
How do the C&C 131 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 131 | C&C 131 | Landfall 42 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 43.0 ft13.10 m | 41.7 ft12.70 m |
| Waterline length | 37.2 ft11.35 m | 30.0 ft9.14 m |
| Beam | 13.0 ft3.95 m | 12.5 ft3.81 m |
| Draft | 8.7 ft2.65 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 16,975 lb7,700 kg | 21,000 lb9,525 kg |
| Ballast | 6,790 lb3,080 kg | 8,800 lb3,992 kg |
| Sail area | 889 ft²82.6 m² | 709 ft²65.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.54 | 14.90 |
| Displacement / Length | 147 | 347 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.2 | 33.5 |
| Capsize screening | 2.02 | 1.81 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.2 | 7.3 |
C&C 131 vs Landfall 42: the short version
- The C&C 131 is the larger boat at 43.0 ft13.10 m LOA versus 41.7 ft12.70 m for the Landfall 42.
- The Landfall 42 is heavier, displacing about 24% 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 14.9), 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 2.02).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.