C&C 131 vs Landfall 48
How do the C&C 131 and Landfall 48 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 48 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 43.0 ft13.10 m | 47.5 ft14.48 m |
| Waterline length | 37.2 ft11.35 m | 37.3 ft11.38 m |
| Beam | 13.0 ft3.95 m | 14.0 ft4.27 m |
| Draft | 8.7 ft2.65 m | 6.6 ft2.01 m |
| Displacement | 16,975 lb7,700 kg | 31,600 lb14,334 kg |
| Ballast | 6,790 lb3,080 kg | 12,300 lb5,579 kg |
| Sail area | 889 ft²82.6 m² | 960 ft²89.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.54 | 15.37 |
| Displacement / Length | 147 | 271 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.2 | 36.0 |
| Capsize screening | 2.02 | 1.77 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.2 | 8.2 |
C&C 131 vs Landfall 48: the short version
- The Landfall 48 is the larger boat at 47.5 ft14.48 m LOA versus 43.0 ft13.10 m for the C&C 131.
- The Landfall 48 is heavier, displacing about 86% 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 15.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Landfall 48 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 48 rates better for offshore work (1.77 vs 2.02).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.