C&C 30 Redwing vs Shields
How do the C&C 30 Redwing and Shields compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 30 Redwing 
Shields | C&C 30 Redwing | Shields | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 30.3 ft9.22 m | 30.2 ft9.21 m |
| Waterline length | 21.8 ft6.63 m | 20.0 ft6.10 m |
| Beam | 8.8 ft2.67 m | 6.4 ft1.96 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 4.8 ft1.45 m |
| Displacement | 7,650 lb3,470 kg | 4,600 lb2,087 kg |
| Ballast | 3,530 lb1,601 kg | 3,080 lb1,397 kg |
| Sail area | 395 ft²36.7 m² | 363 ft²33.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.28 | 21.00 |
| Displacement / Length | 332 | 257 |
| Comfort ratio | 27.1 | 25.9 |
| Capsize screening | 1.78 | 1.54 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.2 | 6.0 |
C&C 30 Redwing vs Shields: the short version
- The C&C 30 Redwing and Shields are close in length (30.3 ft9.22 m vs 30.2 ft9.21 m ).
- The C&C 30 Redwing is heavier, displacing about 66% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Shields carries the more powerful rig (21.0 vs 16.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 30 Redwing scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Shields rates better for offshore work (1.54 vs 1.78).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.