C&C 33 vs C&C 99
How do the C&C 33 and C&C 99 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 33 
C&C 99 | C&C 33 | C&C 99 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.9 ft10.02 m | 32.5 ft9.91 m |
| Waterline length | 26.4 ft8.05 m | 29.1 ft8.86 m |
| Beam | 10.5 ft3.20 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 5.5 ft1.68 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 9,800 lb4,445 kg | 9,265 lb4,203 kg |
| Ballast | 4,075 lb1,848 kg | 3,500 lb1,588 kg |
| Sail area | 501 ft²46.5 m² | 562 ft²52.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.50 | 20.38 |
| Displacement / Length | 237 | 168 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.3 | 19.9 |
| Capsize screening | 1.96 | 2.06 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 7.2 |
C&C 33 vs C&C 99: the short version
- The C&C 33 and C&C 99 are close in length (32.9 ft10.02 m vs 32.5 ft9.91 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 99 carries the more powerful rig (20.4 vs 17.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 33 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 33 rates better for offshore work (1.96 vs 2.06).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.