C&C 37 vs Landfall 38
How do the C&C 37 and Landfall 38 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 37 | C&C 37 | Landfall 38 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 37.6 ft11.45 m | 37.6 ft11.45 m |
| Waterline length | 28.8 ft8.76 m | 30.2 ft9.20 m |
| Beam | 11.7 ft3.56 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 6.7 ft2.04 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 14,300 lb6,486 kg | 16,700 lb7,575 kg |
| Ballast | 6,000 lb2,722 kg | 6,500 lb2,948 kg |
| Sail area | 670 ft²62.2 m² | 648 ft²60.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.20 | 15.87 |
| Displacement / Length | 269 | 271 |
| Comfort ratio | 26.7 | 29.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.92 | 1.88 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.2 | 7.4 |
C&C 37 vs Landfall 38: the short version
- The C&C 37 and Landfall 38 are close in length (37.6 ft11.45 m vs 37.6 ft11.45 m ).
- The Landfall 38 is heavier, displacing about 17% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 37 carries the more powerful rig (18.2 vs 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Landfall 38 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 38 rates better for offshore work (1.88 vs 1.92).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.