C&C 39 vs Landfall 39
How do the C&C 39 and Landfall 39 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 39 | C&C 39 | Landfall 39 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.3 ft11.96 m | 39.2 ft11.94 m |
| Waterline length | 30.5 ft9.30 m | 30.6 ft9.32 m |
| Beam | 11.5 ft3.51 m | 11.5 ft3.51 m |
| Draft | 6.3 ft1.91 m | 5.6 ft1.70 m |
| Displacement | 16,750 lb7,598 kg | 23,500 lb10,659 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 8,800 lb3,992 kg |
| Sail area | 726 ft²67.4 m² | 811 ft²75.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.74 | 15.82 |
| Displacement / Length | 264 | 367 |
| Comfort ratio | 30.2 | 42.4 |
| Capsize screening | 1.80 | 1.61 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.4 |
C&C 39 vs Landfall 39: the short version
- The C&C 39 and Landfall 39 are close in length (39.3 ft11.96 m vs 39.2 ft11.94 m ).
- The Landfall 39 is heavier, displacing about 40% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 39 carries the more powerful rig (17.7 vs 15.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Landfall 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 39 rates better for offshore work (1.61 vs 1.80).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.