C&C 35 vs Niagara 26
How do the C&C 35 and Niagara 26 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 35 
Niagara 26 | C&C 35 | Niagara 26 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 34.6 ft10.54 m | 26.7 ft8.13 m |
| Waterline length | 27.5 ft8.38 m | 23.0 ft7.01 m |
| Beam | 10.6 ft3.22 m | 8.3 ft2.54 m |
| Draft | 5.3 ft1.60 m | 4.4 ft1.35 m |
| Displacement | 10,500 lb4,763 kg | 4,000 lb1,814 kg |
| Ballast | 5,000 lb2,268 kg | 1,700 lb771 kg |
| Sail area | 576 ft²53.5 m² | 316 ft²29.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 19.22 | 20.06 |
| Displacement / Length | 225 | 147 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.7 | 15.2 |
| Capsize screening | 1.93 | 2.10 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.0 | 6.4 |
C&C 35 vs Niagara 26: the short version
- The C&C 35 is the larger boat at 34.6 ft10.54 m LOA versus 26.7 ft8.13 m for the Niagara 26.
- The C&C 35 is heavier, displacing about 163% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Niagara 26 carries the more powerful rig (20.1 vs 19.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 35 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 35 rates better for offshore work (1.93 vs 2.10).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.