C&C 40 vs Islander 40
How do the C&C 40 and Islander 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 | Islander 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.7 ft12.09 m | 39.5 ft12.05 m |
| Waterline length | 28.7 ft8.74 m | 30.8 ft9.40 m |
| Beam | 11.2 ft3.40 m | 11.8 ft3.61 m |
| Draft | 9.1 ft2.77 m | 7.2 ft2.19 m |
| Displacement | 18,225 lb8,267 kg | 17,000 lb7,711 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 7,700 lb3,493 kg |
| Sail area | 735 ft²68.3 m² | 734 ft²68.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.98 | 17.76 |
| Displacement / Length | 345 | 259 |
| Comfort ratio | 35.5 | 29.3 |
| Capsize screening | 1.70 | 1.84 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.2 | 7.4 |
C&C 40 vs Islander 40: the short version
- The C&C 40 and Islander 40 are close in length (39.7 ft12.09 m vs 39.5 ft12.05 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Islander 40 carries the more powerful rig (17.8 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 1.84).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.