C&C 26 vs Dawson 26
How do the C&C 26 and Dawson 26 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 26 
Dawson 26 | C&C 26 | Dawson 26 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 25.6 ft7.80 m | 25.6 ft7.80 m |
| Waterline length | 23.6 ft7.19 m | 22.2 ft6.76 m |
| Beam | 10.4 ft3.18 m | 8.0 ft2.44 m |
| Draft | 4.6 ft1.40 m | 5.3 ft1.62 m |
| Displacement | 5,400 lb2,449 kg | 4,700 lb2,132 kg |
| Ballast | 2,040 lb925 kg | 1,165 lb528 kg |
| Sail area | 331 ft²30.8 m² | 270 ft²25.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.21 | 15.40 |
| Displacement / Length | 184 | 193 |
| Comfort ratio | 15.2 | 19.6 |
| Capsize screening | 2.38 | 1.91 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 6.3 |
C&C 26 vs Dawson 26: the short version
- The C&C 26 and Dawson 26 are close in length (25.6 ft7.80 m vs 25.6 ft7.80 m ).
- The C&C 26 is heavier, displacing about 15% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 26 carries the more powerful rig (17.2 vs 15.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Dawson 26 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Dawson 26 rates better for offshore work (1.91 vs 2.38).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.