SailNet Community - Reply to Topic

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  

Quick Menu
Boat Reviews  
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Marine Electronics
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here

Go Back   SailNet Community > On Board > Boat Review and Purchase Forum > Boat Reviews > C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2
 Not a Member? 

Boat Reviews This forum has all types of boat reviews. Take a look, Dream, Agree, Dissagree.... but enjoy.

Thread: C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2 Reply to Thread

By choosing to post the reply below you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.
User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below

Topic Review (Newest First)
3 Weeks Ago 10:19 PM
Re: C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

Thank you for your information. Have a great winter.
3 Weeks Ago 05:03 AM
Re: C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

I have a 1979 C&C 27 MKIII with diesel and all I can say is that it was fun reeling in a C&C 29 (not sure which MK) and passing her on numerous legs of a Great Lakes cruise/race this season. Some folks can't tell the boats apart.
3 Weeks Ago 12:08 AM
Re: C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

I think Ron's take is correct. In digging around I found this review posted when the boat (Mk I) was new so I suspect the numbers came from the builder.\

Published in Motor Boating & Sailing
June 1977

Tobin publishes the mast clearance as 43' 5" for the Mk I and my observation of my dock neighbor's MK II is that it is slightly lower. Of course your mileage will vary depending on the tide and water level. I would be wary of any bridge that was lower than 50 ft and that is pushing it.
3 Weeks Ago 10:34 PM
Re: C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

Originally Posted by Wildguy View Post
Could you please provide the height of the mast on the 29-2 from the waterline to the top. Much appreciated, thank you.
The 29 mk1 is listed with an I of 39.5 and a bridge clearance of 45 feet. The Mk II has an I of 38.5, so the bridge clearance would be similar, possibly a few inches less but the cabintop is likely higher above the waterline so it's tough to say.

My IOR measurement certificate lists the I=39.9 and you have the headboard on top of that, maybe 8 to 10 inches from the black band to the top of the mast
The headboard height is included in the P measurement, and is included in the 'black band' height... the I measurement is to the top of the forestay, but from a horizontal line off the headsail tack fitting. So the I is the height above deck.. longer than the measurement to the cabintop - (ie the mast will be physically shorter than the 'I'.)

44-46 feet tops is likely the bridge clearance on either model. But if you want to use 60 feet, that's on the safe side!

Our 34 foot fractional rig with a P of 42 feet or so has a bridge clearance of 55 feet (so the gooseneck is 7 feet above the waterline give or take - it has more freeboard and a higher cabin house than either C&C 29). I suspect that the C&C 29 masthead will easily be 10 feet lower to the water
3 Weeks Ago 10:12 PM
Re: C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

I have often wondered myself, about the height of the mast. My IOR measurement certificate lists the I=39.9 and you have the headboard on top of that, maybe 8 to 10 inches from the black band to the top of the mast. I am 6 ft tall and when I stand toes in the water on the stern ladder I can't touch the end of the boom. Waterline to the boom must be eight to ten feet. So that would put the waterline to the top of the mast somewhere just over 60 ft n'est pas. On top of that I have a Metz VHF antenna that extends above the top of the mast maybe three or four feet. I must admit the closest to the bridge deck I have ever come was at Oak Orchard on Lake Ontario. But my chart application is on the boat, and I don't recollect the water level at the time. The antenna did not hit, but it looked close. You can check the harbor on the NOAA chart site and read up in the Pilot manual. If you find a definitive answer I would love to hear it......

Oh I see you are asking about the Mk II, guess you will have to find an owner.
3 Weeks Ago 06:40 PM
Re: C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

Could you please provide the height of the mast on the 29-2 from the waterline to the top. Much appreciated, thank you.
12-30-2013 04:51 PM
Re: C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

The Mark 1 is fatter and more tender. Very fast in light air but so tender in heavy air. Loves to round up. Rudder needs to be bigger. More room than Mark 2.
02-10-2013 09:59 PM
C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

To update the discussion.
The C&C 29 Mk 1 that I was trying to see is off the market. No responses from seller when I was asking to see the boat.
I'm guessing it sold.
I'm sitting back a bit watching what is avail. Couple of nice looking C&C 30's that are not terribly far away. They might be a good fit.
I'll likely wait until summer when I can have the boat assessed on the water.
Thx for all the feedback.
01-28-2013 01:10 PM
Re: C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

FDR, not to start a fight, but here are some things to ponder. The waterline for the 29-1 is: 23.58', the 29-2 is 22.33. Of course the heeled waterline length is longer on both boats because of the overhangs. The I dimensions are the same for both boats. The -1 has a foot and a half bigger J and the E is a 1/2 foot shorter compared to the -2. The headsails and foredeck work is easier to handle on the -2.

Here is a direct quote on the 29-1 from Hank Evans, former C&C sales manager about the 29-1
"The 29 MK I (and the 26) reflected the design thinking of the time which was to take some volume out of the underbody and put it in the topsides thus reducing wetted surface. 29 was distinctly flattened on the bottom adjacent to the keel. This flat was anticipated to provide some lift or planning effect when the boat was sailed relatively flat off the wind, thus further reducing wetted surface. This volume was placed above the water line in rather extreme topsides flair. This produced a "tender" boat at the dock and initially under sail. As the boat healed the flare became immersed and the boat stiffened markedly. The more flair immersed the stiffer it became and it is actually hard to get the the windows of a MK I wet. An additional benefit of this thinking was a very beamy and roomy interior above the water line where the space could be used for living and storage and indeed that part of the concept worked nicely. Unfortunately, as the boat healed and mimersed all that topsides flair it started to slow down. The greater the angle of heel the more more the flair was immersed and the slower the boat went. Not literally, but relatively. The immersed flair created increased drag and had the unwanted consequence of providing a large surface for the water flow to tend to push the bow to windward. That combined with the rudder becoming less effective at greater angles of heel and the natural tendency of a sailboat to round up made the 29 MK I difficult to keep going straight at high angles of heel.

Every 29 MK I owner has had unintentional and undesired round ups into the wind where the combination of the immersed hull shape and rudder made it impossible to prevent unless you had someone very quick on the sheets and sometimes even that didn't help. Holding the 29 off the wind at high angles of heel requires excessive rudder and that adds dramatically to drag. That is up to the point where the rudder stalls and you round up quickly. Sometimes so quickly, the boat will actually tack itself and that can create some very hairy situations on the race course. This design thinking was pretty short lived with 29 and 26 being the prime examples. They were getting pretty far away from it with 34 . Obviously, this design thinking wasn't the best idea C&C ever came up with. About the only solution is to sail the boat relatively flat (15 to 17 degrees) and keep that flair from immersing very far, much like you would sail a dingy. People racing MK I's will ease the traveller down, carry a luff in the main and when it really blows may carry the main almost fully aback while driving the boat on the jib. Sometimes you even have to feather the jib to keep it on its feet. Whatever it takes to keep the boat upright. Don't misunderstand, you can drive a MK I with the rail in the water and its as much fun as sailing any other C&C that way. You just have to accept the fact that the 29 next to you that's at 15 degrees with the main luffing is going to kick your tail.

For the record, I looked very hard at the -1 when looking to purchase one 3 years ago. After talking to a couple of owners of both boats the -2 won out. The market price for a good not pristine condition freshwater -2 was 18K 2 years ago. The -1 were in the 12-15 k range for boats that were were 5-7 years older than the -2. So far, the Yanmar has been very good and properly sized for this boat. I like it. I had an A4 on my last boat. Pretty bullet proof no doubt. I'd be concerned about a raw water cooled one that has been in saltwater though. Fresh water cooled A4s are all aftermarket modified AFAIK.
01-27-2013 08:21 PM
C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

FDR - thanks for the insight.
I've not had a chance to see the boat yet but I'll have a better handle on what to look for.
I've read a lot online and was coming to the same conclusion you have offered - that the boat sails well as long as you don't overpower.
Intrigued to hear your positive thoughts on the Atomic 4. I thought that might be a major sticking point. I'm hoping to boat has a fresh water cooling system rather than salt water - since it sounds like the salt water systems cause more problems.

I'm looking forward to checking the boat out shortly. I will likely do a cursory evaluation - then go back when the snow clears if it looks good under its cover.

This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:15 PM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) LLC 2000-2012

The store is owned and operated by a company independent of the forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.