Survey Report No.  S - XXXXX                                 Date of Survey:  XXXXX

Vessel: Kalik 44                                  Location of Survey:  




Note:              +  indicates generally a “minor” deficiency.

            *  indicates a more important or more costly deficiency.

            ฎ indicates a Recommendation for safety and seaworthiness.


The Recommendations are listed again together at the end of the report




This vessel was surveyed afloat at dockside and then towed over and hauled out for bottom inspection.  The engine was not operational due to an apparent leaky fuel tank (tank now empty) and no comment can be made on operational condition.   The mast was stepped and rigged and inspected only from deck level.

Reportedly the current owners have owned only about 3 years.  Previously the vessel was apparently used mostly as a liveaboard in the Boston area.  Reportedly it spent a year in the Carribean on charter.




            Name of Vessel …………………..  XXXXXXXXX        

            Hailing Port ………………………  Boston, Mass.

           Federal Documentation No. ………            XXXXX                                                                  Builder’s Hull I. D. No. ………….   XXXXX

            Builder …………………………… Jachtwerf Vennekens

            Where Built. ……………………..   Boom, Belgium

           Year Built …………………………  1982

            Type of vessel ……………………  Fin keel cruising sloop


           Notes and Comments on Vessel Identification:


Builder’s hull number found on Builder’s plate at navigation desk.  Documentation number found in cockpit locker and on Documentation papers

SPECIFICATIONS (data from mfg’s spec. sheets unless otherwise noted)


           Length (O.D.)  43’ 9”    Length (Overall)  same  Waterline  35’ 5”          


           Beam     13’ 9”      Draft      6’ 6”    Displacement   about 25,000 lbs


            Ballast                   Sail area   




Hull Material and construction:    

 Exact layup unknown but appears to be fiberglass laminate with balsa core.  Appears to be solid fiberglass on centerline and at sheer.

The hull appears fair of line with no distortions.

The hull was fully percussion sounded below the waterline and there is no apparent damage, delamination, core deterioration or large voids.  Percussion sounding indicates a well built hull and fairly heavy construction.


Reportedly there were some blisters discovered and the bottom was “peeled” and barrier coated in about 1996.   Reportedly the outer lamination was peeled and rebuilt using probably epoxy.  There are no current blisters visible at this time. Moisture meter testing could not be done as the vessel was shorthauled.  The peel/barrier job appears very well done (reportedly done by Jamestown Boatyard – a leader in the field).


Hull Stiffening method:    

Cored construction is inherently stiff however interior bulkheads tabbed into place add additional stiffening.

The bulkheads and tabbing appear sound and secure except for:

+  One secondary bulkhead under the starboard forward vee berth shows detatched tabbing.  This is minor and probably from bond failure and not from trama.


Ballast keel:      

Cast iron fin bolted to fiberglass hull stub with stainless steel bolts.

The keel has been fiberglassed over apparently when the hull was peeled and a new outer lamination put on.  Reportedly this new lamination was also taken down over the keel.  The keel appears very good and shows no cracking of the hull to keel joint.  There is no rusting other than some typically at the bottom where the barrier coating has been abraded off during haulouts.

Most of the keel bolts where not visible as there was a large amount of dirty bilge water covering them but the one that was visible appears very good.


Through-hull fittings: 

Marlon plastic mushroom head through-hulls with Marlon ball valves screwed on for all except the engine intake which was bronze. 

   All the ball valves were found frozen or very stiff to operate.  They should be maintenanced to operate freely.

All hoses appeared in good condition.

Bottom paint:

Ablative bottom paint brand unknown.  Light build up and smooth and tight.

Topside finish:

Awlgrip paint, age unknown but broker thought it was about 10 years old.

*    Paint is weathered consistent with being at least that old.  It is dull and oxidized and there are a number of places where the paint has been worn from either fenders or dock etc.  There is a particularly large abrasion on the port side about amidships that has worn into the skin coat layer. This is cosmetic only.  There are a number of craze cracks on the starboard side about amidships up near the sheer.  These appear to be some form of weathering crazing in the gelcoat underneath.  The hull structure here is sound.  Treat them as a cosmetic problem.  The antifouling paint has been brought up above the original boot top and this paint line is poorly done and flaking off.  The two stripes at the sheer are weathered and getting ugly looking.  Bottom line:  topsides are due for some cosmetic overhauling.




Deck Material and Construction:    

The deck has a teak overlay and the actual deck structure is hard to see and determine its construction.  It was at first presumed to be typical fiberglass laminate with balsa stiffening core, however, it may not be.  There is no information on the web about the vessel’s construction.  There appears to be a ฝ” layer of plywood glued or fastened to the deck and then the teak glued and tacked in place with little stainless steel nails fastened into the plywood.  With the teak overlay and a full interior overhead paneling it was not possible to percussion sound or otherwise test the deck structure.

*   The teak overlay is in fair to poor condition.  The wood is worn overall and loose in many places.  The overlay in the cockpit area is especially bad with the wood very loose.  The forward area of the cabin top is also quite loose.  The forward main deck is loose in various areas.  The teak overlay is essentially cosmetic and the relatively poor nature of the overlay will not affect structural operation of the vessel, however, if the deck structure proves to be of single fiberglass skin construction then the plywood and teak may be relied on for stiffness (generally the purpose of the core in a sandwich construction).

   Many of the little stainless steel nails used to fasten the teak to the underlying plywood have been exposed by the wearing down of the teak.  These can be very sharp.  This may cause injury to feet (or body) and could damage sails and lines left on deck.   These should be removed, covered or otherwise addressed to remove this danger.

*    There are many leaks from the deck fittings such as life line stanchion bases, fill fittings, chainplates etc.  While deck fittings can commonly leak on any boat, the teak overlay here is probably responsible for much of the leaking. The wood between the fittings moves and breaks the bedding more easily than if the fitting were mounted on fiberglass alone. Also, water is probably getting under the teak now also and getting into the fitting bolts.  Just rebedding the fittings on the surface may not stop the leaks as water may be getting in underneath.  The only solution is to remove and replace the teak.


* The cabin house top apparently is a balsa cored structure.  It has a crack through the upper laminate on the starboard aft corner. There is brown stained water coming from the crack and the area percussion sounds “dead”.  Most of the cabin top is teak covered so further testing of the core is not possible.  It is probable that some of the core is quite deteriorated.


Hull to Deck Joint and deck edge: 

The hull has an inward turning flange (solid fiberglass) the deck fits over it with a mastic between. The teak decking is over the deck lamination.  The aluminum toe then sandwiches the teak and deck lamination with the hull flange being through-bolted with stainless steel bolts.

This joint shows no damage or repair.

*   There may be some deck leaks from the through-bolts.  In the forward anchor locker and aft lazarette locker there is some evidence of drips from the bolt ends. In the cabin area the hull to deck joint is not exposed except in a few areas, however, there are a number of areas where leaks are actively noted on the sides of the cabinetry etc.  Some of these leaks are coming from life line stanchions and deck fill fittings, however that may not account for all of them.  As there are overhead cosmetic panels that go right to the edge, any deck fitting leaks further in on the deck may run across the panels to drip on the sides and appear to come from the deck edge.  Without pulling the overhead panels and exposing all the deck edge it is impossible to state where the leaks are coming from, however, it is possible some are from the joint bolts.  The teak between the toe rail is certainly more likely to cause leaks than if the aluminum was directly on the fiberglass.  The leaks may come from water getting under the teak and then finding its way to the bolts. If that is the case, the only correction would be to replace the teak.
Sample Survey Reports
Next Page