C&C 35 vs Niagara 35
How do the C&C 35 and Niagara 35 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 35 | C&C 35 | Niagara 35 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 34.6 ft10.54 m | 35.1 ft10.69 m |
| Waterline length | 27.5 ft8.38 m | 26.7 ft8.13 m |
| Beam | 10.6 ft3.22 m | 11.4 ft3.48 m |
| Draft | 5.3 ft1.60 m | 5.2 ft1.58 m |
| Displacement | 10,500 lb4,763 kg | 14,000 lb6,350 kg |
| Ballast | 5,000 lb2,268 kg | 5,500 lb2,495 kg |
| Sail area | 576 ft²53.5 m² | 598 ft²55.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 19.22 | 16.47 |
| Displacement / Length | 225 | 329 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.7 | 28.9 |
| Capsize screening | 1.93 | 1.90 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.0 | 6.9 |
C&C 35 vs Niagara 35: the short version
- The Niagara 35 is the larger boat at 35.1 ft10.69 m LOA versus 34.6 ft10.54 m for the C&C 35.
- The Niagara 35 is heavier, displacing about 33% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 35 carries the more powerful rig (19.2 vs 16.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Niagara 35 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Niagara 35 rates better for offshore work (1.90 vs 1.93).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.