Design and Hull Form
The brief that produced the original 29 was straightforward: reduce cost without sacrificing interior volume. The solution was to move hull volume from below the waterline to the topsides, resulting in pronounced topside flare that was, in the words of one-time C&C sales manager Hank Evans, described as "rather extreme" — though it has since become commonplace. The approach delivered a surprisingly roomy cabin for a sub-30-foot boat, but it created a hull that was tender at the dock and initially under sail, stiffening only once the flare immersed as the boat heeled. That same immersion brought unwanted drag, a strong tendency to push the bow to windward, and, at greater angles of heel, a spade rudder that could lift partially clear of the water — conditions that produced unintentional and undesired round-ups. The 29 was, by her own chief designer's admission, one of Cuthbertson's least favorite boats.
Rig and Sailing Behavior
As a masthead sloop carrying over 420 square feet of working sail on a 29-foot, 7-inch hull, the 29 is generously canvassed for her size, and she rewards that canvas in light and moderate air. In a breeze, however, the only practical technique involves easing the traveler hard to leeward and carrying the main almost fully aback — a dinghy-like drill that is awkward at best for a boat meant to be a comfortable racer/cruiser. In heavy-wind areas, many owners addressed the inherent tenderness through a permanent fix: a C&C-designed 500-pound "shoe" bolted to the original keel. The boat carries a PHRF rating that averages 177, with a hull speed of 6.51 knots, which places her in competitive company for club racing.
The combination of a balanced spade rudder, fin keel, and standard two-bladed propeller earned poor reviews for backing with control. Several owners also noted that similar-sized auxiliaries under power were meaningfully faster than the 29, and the engine compartment on early boats — originally fitted with the Atomic-4 gasoline engine — was tight and awkward to access even after later conversion to diesel.
Construction
Both versions of the 29 were built of solid fiberglass with balsa-cored decks, continuing the C&C practice of using internal fiberglass pans or structural grids to locate furniture and distribute working loads. These bonds, though often hidden behind furniture or beneath headliners, are critical structural connections, and checking them should be a first priority on survey. One documented case involved separation between a hull and the bulkhead carrying a chainplate. The MK I 29 also suffers from a wooden mast step that many owners have had to replace due to rot. Gelcoat crazing and small cracks around the cockpit sole and winch areas have been reported on both versions. Blistering was reported by enough MK I owners to suggest it was a meaningful problem, though no case was described as catastrophic.
Accommodations
The 29's interior was designed with the racer/cruiser compromise firmly in mind, and the layout reflects it. A quarterberth and nav station occupy the port side, the galley is to starboard in an L-shaped arrangement, and a full-width head sits just aft of the forecabin. Six berths are listed, though the forecabin earned the description "somewhat cave-like" from at least one owner. Owners generally find the boat ideal for a couple, with space becoming progressively more of a problem with additional crew. Specific complaints have accumulated over the years: berths described as too short, overhead too low, no hanging locker, a head door that is awkward in use, and insufficient tankage. Deck and port leaks have also been cited. Ventilation is provided via an overhead port just aft of the mast, and the forehatch position improves airflow through the cabin.
Known Issues and Refit Considerations
The MK I's structural vulnerabilities are well established. The wooden mast step is a near-universal replacement item. Bulkhead tabbing and the hull-to-deck bond should be inspected closely, particularly at chainplate locations. Blistering in the hull laminate was common enough to warrant a professional barrier coat evaluation on any example that has not already been treated. Gelcoat crazing concentrated around stress risers — cockpit sole, winch bases — is cosmetically unpleasant and worth monitoring for progression into the laminate. The balsa-cored deck requires careful inspection at all hardware penetrations for moisture ingress; plywood replaces the balsa in hardware areas, but long-term fastener integrity depends on the quality of the original bedding. Engine compartment access is constrained on both early gasoline and later diesel installations, making routine maintenance more demanding than on more accessible designs.
The Verdict
The C&C 29 Mark I occupies a particular and somewhat contradictory place in the racer/cruiser catalog. It is a boat that sold strongly, still attracts loyal owners, and carries the C&C name's earned credibility — yet it was, by the frank assessment of those who designed and sold it, a flawed hull that required compensating techniques to sail well in any wind above moderate. In light air it shines; in a breeze it demands attention and skilled sail trim to avoid the rounding-up that plagued early fleets. Its construction quality is generally above average for the era, but age-related vulnerabilities at the mast step, bulkhead tabbing, and hull laminate make a rigorous survey non-negotiable.
Pros
- Generous sail area relative to displacement rewards light-air sailing
- Spacious topsides-forward interior for a sub-30-foot racer
- Solid C&C construction heritage with fiberglass structural grids
- Competitive one-design fleets remain active
- PHRF rating keeps her in club-racing company
Cons
- Pronounced tenderness and weather-helm in any meaningful breeze
- Rudder can lose effectiveness or partially exit the water at high heel angles
- Wooden mast step is a chronic rot problem requiring replacement
- Bulkhead-to-hull tabbing failures documented, particularly at chainplates
- Blistering was a widespread issue in the MK I laminate
- Engine access is constrained and backing control is poor
- Not suited to shorthanded offshore passages without the keel shoe modification









