I believe the difference between the Greenland kayak and the Aleut kayak is like this comparison between snow shoes and skis.

A more appropriate comparison may be high jumping skis vs mogul skis, but lets make it clear that there are more than 2 types of kayaks. Modern kayakers venturing out on to the ocean are not limited by these Aleut vs Greenland. And even if we were, the variations within the two types are don't allow for real generalization about either type.

Modern sea going kayaks vary from the Anas Acuta, to the F1, to the Explorer, to the Reflection, to the Delphin, to the Zegul Baidarka, to the Mariner Max, to the Bering Sea, to the Chatham, to the V14 and a whole bunch in between.

Anas Acuta - Reproduction Greenland kayak design. Slender, pinched ends. Low volume ends. Long over hangs. High rocker

F1 - Short, SOF, High Volume midsection, Deep V ends, Shallow V amidship. Short overhangs. Moderate Rocker

Explorer - Hi Volume, slightly pinched ends with a lot of volume, Long overhangs.

Reflection - Symmetrical bow and stern, Heavily rockered, Full middle, pinched ends. High Rocker

Delphin - Full ends and middle, flattish bottom, no overhang. Moderate rocker

Segul Baidarka - Based on my Aleutesque design, not directly on a traditional iqyax. Fine bow, full stern, full volume mid section.

Mariner Max - Fine bow, Full stern, high volume ends, soft chine bow, hard chine stern. moderate rocker.

Bering Sea - Convex waterlines, nearly plumb bow, reverse stern, high volume. Low rocker

Chatham 17 - Long overhangs, convex ends, moderate volume ends, full middle. Low Rocker.

V14 - Convex waterlines, fine ends, high volume bow, low volume stern, plumb ends, High Rocker

While several of these might superficially be classified "Greenland Style" only one of these have a hull shape that closely resembles a traditional kayak. The Anas Acuta is glass reproduction of a Greenland design. While some of the designs have some traits that resemble Greenland kayaks, they all differ greatly from traditional Greenlandic hull shapes. Some of them more closely resemble Aleut designs in hull form. The Mariner, Bering Sea and the F1 are interesting examples.

Even the Anas Acuta will not give a paddler an accurate feel for how the original Greenland kayaks performed. As a glass boat, it is impossible for it to match the performance characteristics of the skin-on-frame kayak it was based on. The flexibility of the skin and the frame were integral to the design and to separate the shape from the construction method also divorces it from its original performance characteristics. Weight distribution differences will also effect the feel of the design on the water. I personally don't believe that frame flexibility results in any amazing performance advantage, but a kayak that was designed with flex as a characteristic has other attributes that likely only work appropriately in combination with that flex.

Many of the above designs are demonstrably good surfing kayaks. If I weren't religiously opposed to buying someone else's design, I would be happy to have any one of the above kayaks and would use each for different kinds of paddling and different conditions.

It is easy to take one or two characteristics and try to generalize. People like to say "Hard chine kayaks are ...", "Long over hangs are ...", "Greenland kayaks are ..." but you can't accurately predict kayak performance based on a couple characteristics. Kayak designs are more complex than individual design features.

There are many different design solutions for kayaking on the ocean. These many variations result in a wide variety of performance profiles. Surfing is one trait that can be designed for, but it isn't always compatible with good performance in other areas.

Perspective is everything!

Here are 5 different Aleut iqyax from various parts of the Aleutian chain and various time periods from Dyson's book:

If we approached Aleut single kayaks from the perspective of the 1798 Kodiak Island (#2) we would have a very different view of the type than if we started with the 1798 Unalaska (#1) The 5 different designs show different volumes, rockers, bow and stern volumes, widths, lengths etc. These kayaks will perform very differently. If kayak #5 performs a certain way in surf, kayak #3 will unquestionably perform differently yet they both come from the same place. We won't even go into how different #2 is.

If we compare something new (or obscure) to what we know, it won't fit our measure. Does that mean it can't exist?

We can presume that these different kayaks were paddled in a different way, but we can't presume that they performed in a manner unimaginable from other designs. Without any evidence to suggest that the boats perform in an unusual manner we have to assume that they weren't outside the realm of what we have experienced. The best accounts of the performance of historical bidarkas sets their top speed around 10 knots. On another post you commented about 50 foot waves and speculated how fast they might have gone in those conditions. Since we don't have anything to tell us otherwise we can't say they went much faster than current kayaks. With experiencing paddling in a wide variety of wave conditions, I'm confident that the most you can hope for is the occasional quick burst to 20 mph, but the conditions that allow this are generally brief.

While we can speculate that there was a 50 knot surfing bidarka, our day dreaming speculation doesn't make it so.

I also think the Aleut paddle was used in ways we don't understand and contributed greatly to the Aleut's mastery of the sea.

Looking back at the historical record what makes you think they used in ways we don't understand? What mysterious performance can't be explained by what we currently know for certain. Every account I have heard doesn't not require any wild difference to explain. Yes, we don't know for certain which was the power face, but that is different than saying there was some mysterious forgotten technique they employed.

There seems to be a need to give the Aleut (and Inuit) people super powers beyond what we can see in front of us. These people lived and thrived in an extraordinarily harsh environment. They did what all humans throughout time have done, they learned about their environment and developed excellent tools to work within it. The baidarka is a beautiful, great performing kayak even if all it does is what we modern kayakers are capable of. Yet, somehow for some people, that is not enough, as if it somehow diminishes their accomplishments. We don't need to make up mysterious forgotten abilities based on scant evidence. What we know for certain is amazing enough as it is. The baidarka is F*¢#ing awesome without being capable of doing mythological feats.

Every kayak currently in existence is based on the Greenland and Aleut kayaks often combined with the thousands of years of European boating tradition with maybe some of the last 100 years of scientific analysis, to make exceptionally fine boats each in their own way. It is is impossible to make a baidarka that is better at being a baidarka than a baidarka. The various qajaqs of Greenland are extraordinary capable kayaks deserving nothing but the greatest respect. However, it is possible to design new kayaks that are better at handling specific uses and conditions than an individual iqyax designed for the waters surrounding Umnak Island.

The best solution for a beach break in Rhode Island will be different from the best kayak for a tide race on the coast of Maine and that will be different the ideal kayak for down wind runs off South Africa, which will also be different from what works great on a tidal standing wave in British Columbia. If you are not choosing/designing your boat for the conditions you are using it in, you will at best get a compromise.