C&C 40 vs Hunter 40
How do the C&C 40 and Hunter 40 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 40 | C&C 40 | Hunter 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.7 ft12.09 m | 39.6 ft12.06 m |
| Waterline length | 28.7 ft8.74 m | 32.5 ft9.91 m |
| Beam | 11.2 ft3.40 m | 13.4 ft4.09 m |
| Draft | 9.1 ft2.77 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 18,225 lb8,267 kg | 17,400 lb7,893 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 7,900 lb3,583 kg |
| Sail area | 735 ft²68.3 m² | 787 ft²73.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.98 | 18.75 |
| Displacement / Length | 345 | 226 |
| Comfort ratio | 35.5 | 24.5 |
| Capsize screening | 1.70 | 2.07 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.2 | 7.6 |
C&C 40 vs Hunter 40: the short version
- The C&C 40 and Hunter 40 are close in length (39.7 ft12.09 m vs 39.6 ft12.06 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 40 carries the more powerful rig (18.8 vs 17.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 40 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 40 rates better for offshore work (1.70 vs 2.07).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.