Now, before I get too much further, I will reinforce that minimalist part. This boat was designed to carry two people and a lot of stuff safely through a broad range of conditions. It has a galley, but no head. It has two berths (one 8' long) and a lot of storage space... I've estimated that you could reasonably pack 300 days worth of food, 100 days worth of water (minimum consumption), along with two bicycles, a hard dingy, seven sails, a few changes of clothes, a small library, a guitar, some fishing gear, almost all the safety equipment you could want, 200' of chain and another 400' of 1/2" nylon anchor rode, three anchors, and a bunch of other "cruising essentials"... What you don't get in the standard package is any of the the "modern" stuff... radios, inboard engine, standing headroom, "extra" sleeping areas, electric lights... you get the idea.
NOTE: I'm not saying that you would want to carry three hundred days worth of food, but you could... I would equip this boat with a hand pump water maker (with an electric drive) in a heartbeat if I had the cash... and three hundred days of rice, beans, "potted meat product" and multi-vitamins sounds awfully dull. It could be done, though, without much struggle.
Boats, as with everything else, fall into one of two categories. There are the "replicants" that everybody knows, boats that have production runs measured in thousands, but it takes an expert (or an owner) to tell the difference between the models... and there are boats built to the 10:1 rule. What is the 10:1 rule? Simply put, for every ten people who view a boat, nine will not care about it (or will dislike it) for every one that likes it. Usually the people who like a 10:1 boat like it a lot.
This rule didn't really strike me with any significance until I actually bought a boat from the 10:1 class... I had been looking for a boat for some time, mostly concentrating on Cal 2-27's, Catalina 30's, and the like, when I decided that I needed to reevaluate my plans and just get something... Not something $17,000+, but something to use... Saving ten thousand bucks on the boat seemed like a good idea at the time.
I foolishly started looking at 25' boats, and within a week I found an advertisement on the Internet for a 25' Aleutka... My first reaction was "what the bleep's an Aleutka?" Which was followed by a good deal of frustration at my inability to find a single piece of information about Aleutkas on the Internet, but I have always had a fondness for Alaska, and with visions of Aleutian islands, I set out for the book store to see what's been printed regarding this boat.
Nothing. Well, it wasn't quite that bad... There was all of three pages in Ferenc Mate's book Best boats to buy or build right next to the Flicka... Cutter rigged, double ended, twin keeled, oar-locks, ....oarlocks? That's right... The Aleutka 25 includes no provisions for an engine. A pair of 8' oars push the boat (at least as designed) when the sails cannot. The boat was designed to store a hard dingy on the cabin top, which has resulted in some compromises such as an offset companionway to accommodate the bow. The boat is balanced to carry about 250 Lbs of ground tackle in the bow, along with a lot of food, etc.... The mainsail has four reefing points, the foresail is self tending (and has one reef point), the mast is all of 29 feet, with double spreaders, the fore and backstays are doubled, and a set of running backstays counteract the inner forestay. The design also incorporates a fairly unique "breakaway topmast" intended to, even if all the guying can't keep whole mast up after a roll-over or other disaster, at least you may have some mast still standing. Positive (level? it has bow and stern foam compartments, but I haven't flooded it to find out) flotation, plywood stations at 16" centers, a canoe stern, with stern hung balanced rudder... Sounds like it would take a positively sick person to be interested. The designer must have been insane, and anybody who would actually build one of these boats just as crazy... A real shame I drove all the way to be book store to find out that. I email the owner, and agree to drive the 100 odd miles to where the boat is located the following weekend.
Well, that particular boat was in a slight state of disrepair, but I decided it would make a good "project" boat... I bought it for $1600, along with a British Seagull that "didn't work", four sails (out of the designed seven), a dorm refrigerator (why? because I could get him to throw it in...) as many of the "remnants" as we could find, including the home made self steering vane, a bunch of blocks, cleats, etc.
I then set about the process of fitting and refitting for the 120 mile trip up the coast to its new home port... and almost instantly encountered the 10:1 rule... My own feeling about the Aleutka was that it was "good enough" and looked seaworthy and easily single hand-able, but as I was out checking the rigging one of the neighbors instantly came over to help... He lent bits of wood, tools, and his time, all while explaining that he loved my boat and was really glad that somebody was going to be taking care of it now... Two other people from the marina came over to lend a hand... As we pulled out of the bay and onto the Pacific for the first leg of the journey, a TowBoat/US boat started circling us, and the guy called out, "that's an Aleutka, isn't it?" when we answered yes, he replied, "I've got the frame of one of those sitting in my sister's basement... Never finished it... Beautiful boat..."
As we sailed out past the breakwater, people were waving at us left and right (as they passed), and at each stop on the way up, there was at least one person who stopped to tell me that my boat was "a beaut'". At one marina, the owner of beautiful 40' cutter came over to tell me what a nice boat I have (not just stopped as he was walking by, but when he saw me, he came over for just that reason...) One day while I was at work and my Father was at the boat refitting an electric running light, a magazine photographer (I don't know the magazine) photographed him and my boat... At another port, I was told a story from the owner of a 35' yacht about sailing into "Turtle Bay", and seeing a boat "exactly like yours", and how the owner of that boat had built his boat and sailed it from New Zealand...
Now, before anybody gets the wrong impression, the boat was in ...rough... condition. There were holes in the deck covering, 80% of the varnish was sun-burned off, the hull was painted with latex paint, peeling off in spots, the hatches were rotting out and there was worse... The boat needed help, and the prior owner didn't have the resources. It had been all but abandoned for the past 5 years, in the water with one coat of cheap bottom paint and nobody paying any attention to it.
Literally the first thing I did once in Long Beach was take her to a boatyard that didn't require yard labor or materials and spent two weeks (actually, I suckered my parents into spending two weeks) refinishing the hull... Just the hull... We took the whole boat down to bare plastic (removing the bottom paint was easy, most of it came off with the bottom growth when power washed.) epoxy sealed the bottom, and repainted the whole thing. During the 14 days in the boatyard, I (and the "suckers") were interrupted by no fewer than fifty people who wanted to praise, comment, or give advise on the boat... drivers passing by the yard would stop and walk over. Of everyone who stopped, one knew the boat type, and the rest thought it was a "classic" , with most guessed that she was built in about 1935 (the actual date was 1984). Many explained to me that it was an English boat, and when I responded that it had been built in California, they argued. I am still in shock over the level of interest a beaten up little sailboat can draw if there are enough people to look at it.
Comments ranged from owners of 45' cruisers bringing photo albums (on their second stop) to the pair of 16-17 year old kids from the local marina who walked past the boat, stopped about 20 feet from the bow, turned to look over the boat, and one says to the other, "That's a bitch'n boat."
For those that are interested, the photographs on this page were both taken a few days before the boat went back into the water. A lot of the "stock" wood trim has been taken off in these pictures, including the the cabin side facing. The wood on the outside of the Aleutka is mostly "dress wood" which adds nothing to structure, but provides excellent pockets to collect moisture. Most of it was rotten. Fortunately, it is just bolted to the fiberglass cabin. The side wood was removed after a pressure washer "accidentally" sawed raggedly through some of the boards like a chain saw.
| LOA: | 25' 2" | Displacement: | 5500Lbs |
|---|---|---|---|
| LWL: | 22' (est) | Ballast Ratio: | 30% |
| Beam: | 7' 2" | Hull type: | Double end, twin keel |
| Draft: | 2' 9" | Hull material: | GRP, plywood structural reenforcement |
| Hull Speed: | 6.2 Knots | Capsize screening ratio**: | 1.63* |
| Displacement/Length Ratio D/L: | 231* | Sail Area/Displacement ratio SA/D: | 13.9* |
| Aux. Power: | Outboard, oars | Rudder: | Stern Hung, tiller |
| Flotation: | Full (level?) flotation, 2 foam filled compartments (one under cockpit, one in bow) | ||
| Rig: | Marconi Cutter. Some were junk rigged, see bottom of page. | ||
The Aleutka is a hard boat to get a handle on... It is the same size as many day sailers (both in LOA and cabin space), though it weights twice as much as most of them. Designed by John Letcher, (at that time ?not? qualifying for the Dr. Honorific), who in the sixties and seventies was a well known sailor/author/boat designer. The author of at least two nautical books, one about self steering (considered by many to be authoritative, but out of print), and one on celestial navigation, he also contributed to several magazines: Yachting, Sail, Cruising World and Sea.
Letcher designed and built the first Aleutka before going to Maine to and setting up a yacht design/naval engineering company, and it seems to be his first boat design. Plans for the Aleutka were available through the seventies and early eighties, and one boatyard built ready-to-outfit foam core molded hulls, marketed as the "Aleutka 26" by P&M Worldwide Hulls. A second, larger Aleutka followed, with about 30 sets of plans for the Aleutka 29 sold.
Letcher has sort of faded to a behind the scenes role in yacht design... but he has played what some might argue is a larger role in the yachting and marine industry by starting a software company developing CAD software tailored towards boat design. AeroHydro, and their main product, MultiSurf, seems to be the de facto standard for professional boat/yacht designers.
The Flicka is the best known equivalent of the Aleutka, and lovers of the Flicka are the group most likely to know about the Aleutka.
The Aleutka and the Flicka make an interesting comparison. The Flicka is, in everything except length on the waterline, a larger boat, with much better head room (in both senses), an inboard engine, etc. Counting the protrusions, many Flickas come out to about 27', while the Aleutka measures in at an honest 25' 2" + rudder, or maybe 26'
The Aleutka is, for all that she is styled as a '20s era boat, a more modern, even radical design. Letcher's background in hydrodynamics shows in some ways, and seems strangely absent in others. The Flicka's classic "wine-glass" form, especially shortened as it is, is less in keeping with modern hydrodynamic theory... a minor difference more than made up for in sail area, but significant to note. The aleutka actually has relatively little overhang as boats go, mostly because the vertical stern-hung semi-balanced rudder lends itself to a very small (nonexistent) stern overhang. The bow of the Aleutka has a far more "conventional" entry.
Both are proven ocean crossers, the first Aleutka voyaged to Hawaii and Alaska with Letcher at the helm, and later boats have made equally signifigant journies. Two examples (provided by Letcher) are Scott Bottoms, who sailed Maine Reason to Norway, by way of the West Indies and the Azores, and Robert F. L. (Liko) Self, who made two or more round trips between the west coast and Hawaii, perhaps single handed. I have heard reports of Aleutka's sailing from New Zealand to N. America.
They are designed to fill the same role, but of the two, I'd say the Flicka has compromised more of the boat to demands of interior space and comfortable cruisability. Standing headroom, a head, inboard engine, all of these come at a price, and that price is one the Aleutka has not paid.
Though I've never actually been on a Flicka, it sounds like the better boat for "modern" cruising. With typically about 45% greater sail area, about the same wetted surface, and a better righting moment, she would sail better, and though her hull speed is lower you would average a better speed. A foot of extra draft is hardly significant for most gunkholing and shallow water cruising, but will help greatly with sailing in open water and upwind.
The Aleutka will sit on her own feet, a major plus when visiting shallow anchorages. The twin keels also allow you to beach and wait out a tide or for maintenance. For maintenance, a Flicka would need to lay down, but the same sort of no-boatyard bottom maintenance could still be done. You would save the considerable backache of working between the keels, but would need to wait out twice as many tides. The twin keels are also a signifigant advantage for transporting the aleutka.
Adding 124 sq. feet of sail would help the Aleutka keep up with a Flicka, though she'll probably never point as well. The Aleutka's "standard" rig is about 250 square feet in three sails, the largest being an unbattened, roachless (or even slightly undercut) mainsail that, while it looks classic, is not exactly the performance sail of the century. This boat is not, even in the slightest, influenced by the IOR. With the addition of larger or more modern rig, the aleutka could be brought up to her speed potential.
The key difference between the two is the Aleutka's lack of engine accommodations and consideration for electrical and other "vital" systems. This has serious repercussions these days, when radios, electric running lights, etc. are all considered requirements. An outboard with an alternator, if properly installed, will make the two more comparable, but the outboard will be less convenient (and expensive) than the Flicka's diesel inboard (an evaluation perhaps contested by the number of Flickas with outboard motors, but I'm allowed to be wrong). This is not to say that the Aleutka couldn't be built with an inboard engine, a Yanmar SailDrive (or the Kubota Z482-E, as repackaged by Nanni at about 70Kg w/transmission) would fit nicely under the bridge deck, but there is no reenforcement in the design, and the boat is already stern-heavy until you have the boat loaded with equipment. 60 Lbs for a small outboard is probably going to do less to the boat trim than 400Lbs of diesel.
My own opinion is that the Aleutka has a better look. The lower freeboard and deckhouse both reduce windage and improve the "trim" appearance. The "better" proportions from an aesthetic standpoint come at a major cost in accommodations The Flicka isn't going to win as many beauty pageants, but when it comes to comfort and speed, bet on the Flicka.
Having completed the requisite "wet board" onto the Aleutka (without swim steps), I can say that the lower freeboard is an important safety consideration... It was still all I could do to, in tee shirt and jeans, get onto the side deck of the Aleutka, and a Flicka with an extra eight (or so) inches of hull above the water, would have been impossible without help. The Aleutka has a notch in the rudder to ease boarding, but for my test I came up the side.
I crossed about 100 miles of ocean, at times going as far as 15 miles offshore, with speeds of over five knots, without ever getting any water on the side decks. The tee shaped deck house provides an effective barrier to the bow spray.
The design speaks of somebody who wanted, badly, to be on the ocean. It was designed to be bulletproof (OK, nearly..), and easy to build, and not have a lot of junk to deal with. Which is not to say that the design is in any way haphazard or poorly thought out, just that the engineering decisions all optimized for low cost and time to build.
The most advanced piece of equipment envisioned for her was undoubtedly the compass (or the self steering vein). Everything is practical in a backyard, low budget, low skill, real, way. On my boat, the entire list of parts that were not made by the builder is: the sails, the compass, and the burners on the stove (he built the stove, though), and a few hinges in the galley. Everything else, he built. He built the blocks, sail track, engine mount, rudder, self steering vane, on and on. Everything. (OK, he bought nails, bolts, plywood, and the outboard.)
My boat is rigged per the plans, with softeyes on the mast, deadeyes (in place of turnbuckles), etc. a 12 foot wooden boom, a club foot foresail, etc.. This has some distinct advantages, and disadvantages. If I was outfitting a traditionally styled boat today, I would not hesitate for a second to use deadeyes... they work, are low tech., repairable, and are lighter and less prone to unexpected failure than turnbuckles. The look is debatable... I am not fond of it myself, but I have seen boats with fake deadeyes fitted over the turnbuckles, so they must appeal to some.
The rig is very stout. There are two forestays, one inner forestay, three shrouds on each side, two backstays, and two running backstays. The mast has double spreaders. All of this supports a 29' deck stepped mast.
The deadeyes and associated rigging also serve as insulators, which means that using a stay as an antenna would be a simple matter of parceling and serving the soft eye which goes around the mast, and attaching an antenna wire... The only wires that actually go all the way to deck level are the headstays, which means that if there was a lightening strike, it is "possible" that the least resistance path would be through the headstay, over the stem, and into the water. Nobody can predict what will really happen in any one strike, though.
The mast is a two-piece unit with the lower 20' being aluminum, and the last 9' being wood. The idea is that, if you were rolled by a breaking wave, the top of the mast can break off to relieve some of the loading caused by the sail being forced through the water. The lower mast, which still has the inner forestay, the running backstays, and a couple of shrouds on each side, would remain standing so you could continue sailing. Letcher even goes so far as to recommend that you carry a cut down mainsail for use in these conditions, presumably so you can keep a balanced rig (you still would have your foresail in place as a jib). To me, this is sort of like the foam flotation, but a little bit more extreme... I've never tested to see the mast works as billed in a in a roll-over, but I imagine I would prefer it if the something was left standing, should I ever manage a roll-over. I have been giving Letcher the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, the sail track crosses from the wooden topmast to the aluminum mast, and where it does it could bend a little. I had thought that was a problem with my boat's mast, but as it turns out the sail track was slightly too long just below the joint (where the softeyes cross under the track, to be exact), and when it was screwed down it warped, causing the main to stick a little at that point. Despite 15 years of questionable maintenance (there was no varnish left on the mast) and undersized wire in use on the stays and shrouds, there was no significant wear at the joint, and no rotting or other problems, much to my relief.
The mast is, by the way, completely home built. The aluminum is Schedule 40 pipe with a wall thickness of almost a quarter inch... very heavy. The topmast, even the mast-head were all built by the boat builder.
Unfortunately, the builder did not take enough care to prevent galvanic corrosion, and many of the screws are proving difficult to turn. The mast is my current refurbishment project, and with the exception of the new standing rigging I expect it to be finished before the end of the end of May.
The design calls for a pair of movable spars about half way up the mast attached with universal joints for use with running twin/trisails. These spars would stow by swinging down parallel to the mast, and lash out of the way. The universal joints are on my mast, but the spars themselves are not, nor do I have the twin sails. The main advantage of this rig is its natural self-steering ability when properly rigged, but it also should be more manageable than a conventional spinnaker. I haven't actually seen this rig in use, or even seen the spars on any other boats, but details and pictures are available in several books on single-handed sailing, most notably Single Handed Sailing by "Jud" Henderson, a book which also includes several comments from John Letcher.
The hull is, as far as I can tell, a scale model of a 33-35' boat. The look of this boat was obviously a major consideration in the design, and the look is successful. I get many positive comments about the look of my boat, and it is not yet in perfect condition.
That, of course, comes at a cost. The interior has more than enough room for two people. But nobody over about 7 is going to be standing upright. There is a lot of storage, there are a lot of well placed hand holds. The galley is accessible, and safe to use. There is plenty of storage space forward, since there is no V-berth. My own contribution to the galley has been to remove most of it, and replace it with a single burner sea-swing stove, with a "spare" stove stowed, an ice box, and a tray to hold utensils, etc. The design had a little bit more than that, and the builder had a fair amount more than the plans called for, including a poorly placed sink, etc. I will probably go away from my minimalist galley once I have used the boat some more.
There is no place for privacy. There is no place designated for a head. There is no built in tankage for water of fuel. Just two berths and a bare bones galley. As part of my refit, I am adding a chart table (47"x30") and an electrical system, but I will be relying heavily (almost completely, there is a 50w alternator on the outboard, but with that outboard running the sailing experience is more akin to off-road motorcycling) on alternative energy sources.
I currently have a 22 watt solar panel which keeps the batteries pretty well charged, considering that I don't use the boat at night, but to use solar exclusively would cover every available deck surface with solar panels... not acceptable. I am more and more convinced that alternate lighting technology is the answer. Most notably cold cathode fluorescent lamps for running lights.
The cockpit is small, which is a mixed blessing. Personally, I don't think the scuppers were designed all that well, and filling the cockpit with water (which I have done, to see what happens) will pull the stern down a few inches for some time (over five minutes to drain the entire cockpit, since the suppers are two 1.5" openings. The scuppers are also poorly placed. They are in the forward side of the cockpit. When full, the aft side of the cockpit is lower, and drainage would be faster there, and if the scuppers were in the bottom of the cockpit it would be able to get rid of the last inch of water. The cockpit coamings are also vertical, which isn't ideal. I don't know if the cockpit drainage problem is a design or implementation fault, but at least on my boat it is a problem.
I am planning (3/99) to remove the cockpit coamings and replace them with a pair of "wings" going from the cabin sides to the toe rail, swept or curved back with the foresail controls mounted directly to them. That will increase the usable cockpit space dramatically. I am also planning to add a third cockpit drain and round the bottom of the cockpit to improve drainage. The cockpit drains both feed to above the waterline through hulls, one on each side. These are also used to discharge bilge water (with the manual bilge pump). There are no below the waterline through hulls. In fact, there are only two through hulls at all, the cockpit drains. I plan to add a third, very high on the starboard side for an electric bilge pump... not that it will be needed, but I have found that some marinas do not comprehend the concept that some boats are full flotation and do not have through hull fittings to leak. Rather than be refused a berth, I'll put the hole in the hull. The bilge is typically what you would call dusty... In fact, aside from the time I had all of the hatches and deadlights to refinish during a rain storm, there has never been any moisture in the bilge.
The plans include the design for a small pram style dingy... a two sheet plywood boat. Nowadays it would be done in stitch and glue, but the plans are for a more or less traditional sparse frame boat. The dingy is 7' 6" long, and was designed to be rowed with six foot oars, or be sculled. There are no provisions for a sailing rig, but it would be easy to add.
I don't have one myself, (the previous owner threw it overboard during a squall, along with one of the kerosene running lamps... if somebody has a DHR starboard lamp (copper, mid '80s vintage), please let me know... it is hard for me to get a feel for what the boat would look like with the dingy in it's chalks. It would be fairly easy to bring aboard, especially with two people. Single-handed, the dingy would need to be hoisted using a tackle on the main boom, or using a halyard attached to the painter.
I am in the process of building a version of the Aleutka dingy in stitch and glue, so I'll have a better idea how they look together soon.
The dingy stores on the cabin top, and is the reason for one of the Aleutka's most distinctive features, the offset Companionway. By the plans, the companionway is on the starboard side of the cabin, and the dingy's bow rests on the port side. The offset companionway is viewed as somewhat questionable by many, and I haven't seen it all that often. Never in boats as small as the Aleutka. With the companionway on the starboard side, the companionway would be highest when the boat was lying ahull, tied off on a starboard tack, as is traditionally recommended for weathering storms.
The person who built my boat, in a fit of left/right confusion, put the companionway on the port side. I cannot think of a single "bright side" to this, so I will leave it at that.
The boat is light in the bow, to accommodate 250 Lbs. of ground tackle and a bunch of "cruising essentials", and she didn't sit on her lines until I replaced the 12# Danforth and 30' of chain with something more in line with Letcher's 200' of chain and 30# of anchors (and added a couple of batteries forward of the centerline). This is probably especially true since my boat has an outboard hung from the stern. The forward 10 feet (or so) are all stowage, flotation, and structure. There is a *lot* of forward storage, but much of it is difficult to reach. If ready access to the ground tackle was not through the forehatch, you could probably use some of it better, but as it is reaching some of the foc'sl bins requires climbing over the chain lockers, over the forward flotation, etc... difficult is the word.
She is stable, and comfortable. I've never had her out in any conditions that led to a sense of being "in over my head", but I've only ventured out in moderate conditions (NOAA reporting 10' at 16 seconds, with 2' wind waves) so I can't really judge the rough weather handling. The bumpiest part of the trip up the coast was actually after we got into Long Beach harbor, where the chop shortens up considerably and comes from all directions... It still isn't wet or uncomfortable, but there can be a certain amount of lurch.
I had open soda cans sitting in the shade of the cockpit coamings most of the way up the coast... Never spilled a drop. No water make it into the cockpit or even to the side decks... The tee shaped deck house and long bow seem to combine to make the idea of a dodger unnecessary.
The hull is built stoutly, to say the least. One of the benefits of a twin keel boat is the ability to intentionally ground instead of anchoring, and that alone means there must be a lot of strength. When I hauled out for painting, I just went to a standard boat yard and had it lifted with a crane because I wanted to redo the entire bottom of the hull, and I just had them set it on the keels. This surprised them greatly, even though I've seen half a dozen other twin keel boats there since (I drive past the yard going to the marina), most of them are put in cradles.
The strength comes from three factors. The first is the natural desire of any ocean cruiser to feel safe, the second is what I attribute to a form of laziness on the part of Letcher... sort of a "build it strong and lighten it if you need to" approach. In the construction notes he explains that the prototype had a solid Douglass Fir mast... he later split it and hollowed it, but when he was building the boat in the first place he didn't want to take the time to do a cost/benefit analysis. Well, a lot of this boat is that way... Rather than spend the time figuring out how much material was really needed, and where, just build it with a lot of margin for error.
Actually, the natural desire of an ocean cruiser to feel safe may have been especially relevant to Letcher, considering that he had been run down by a cargo ship shortly before designing the Aleutka.
There is a station every 16 inches or so, and the deck has in places 1.5" of plywood. The fiberglass of the hull itself is about 1/2" thick in most places, but I cannot find a span of more than an inch of glass that doesn't have a batten over it (except at the stern... The battens were removed there.). There is a lot of wood in the boat. Enough that some of the problems of wooden boats start to show up. Termites could do a number on this boat.
One reason for all of this wood, and all of the stations, was Letcher's fairly unique form of one-off construction. The boat was built from the inside out, with the stations going in first, and planked by 1/4" thick battens of wood... Not lapped or butted, or even touching in many cases, but enough to support the layers of roving, mat, and cloth that would form the hull. This has the advantage that it is easy and fast, but it is very difficult to make fair. One of the most frequently asked questions with my boat is "is that ferrocement?", because of the uneven surface. This is a situation that I made worse by putting down a high gloss paint job, and is bad enough that when we were painting it, an old man rushed over to berate me for not having faired it... I was only able to mollify him when I he realized that I was using a urethane paint which, in his opinion, "would be strong enough to epoxy over after it had cured for six months or so."
The boat was designed to not only sit on the keels, but be hauled around on them. In the construction notes for the boat, Letcher stated that when he finished the hull of his boat but hadn't yet finished the outfitting, he loaded the whole thing on a flatbed, put all of his possessions inside, and used it as a moving trailer to move up the west coast. He also said that when he was going across to the east coast, he loaded the whole boat onto a flatbed rail car, just sitting on the keels with a block to keep the bow from falling down. His entire instructions on transporting the boat are basically, "Use a double axle trailer, and support the bow to prevent the boat from falling forward. Secure safety straps, and go."
The only really odd things other than that are more engineering tradeoffs than anything else. The boat has no mainsheet traveler (because the cabin top is taken up with a dingy, and you row from the bridge deck) and uses a very dingy-like main sheet with a double block port and starboard, and a double ended sheet. This will be a familiar arrangement to many "classic" boat owners, but it is far from popular today. The tiller and main sheet can get wrapped up in each other if you aren't careful. The stern hung rudder is a flip-up/breakaway design. There is no skeg for protection, because the rudder is balanced. It can still get tiring to operate, but no where near as bad as an unbalanced rudder would be. I have had relatively weak people (one who had undergone major upper body surgery, and lost a fair amount of musculature permanently) at the tiller for extended periods (4-6 hour shifts) without (much) problem. The offset companionway raises some eyebrows, but probably causes no real concern. Oars are a reasonable alternative to powering when in light conditions and when you aren't too close to anything. With the oars deployed the effective beam is about 17 feet. It can be a challenge to handle both oars and tiller at once (especially if you want to push row, to see where you're headed), and I would think of having a sculling oar instead of the normal oars for narrow channel restricted maneuvering work.
On the other hand, I have seriously considered just taking her out for a row from time to time... The only thing that actually stops me is the fact that my marina is in the Long Beach/Port of Los Angeles Harbor, which is one of the busiest commercial shipping harbors in the world. It is scary enough sailing or motoring around with super-tankers and container ships being towed around at 5 knots in restricted channels... rowing would be too much. If I was cruising "off the beaten path" I would use the oars without hesitation.
Overall, I would say that the design philosophy of the Aleutka 25 is one of extremes blended to form a moderate boat... From the extreme traditionalism of deadeyes, to the extreme requirement of a single-hand sailable transpacific voyager, to the extreme requirement of engineless cruising, to the extreme requirement of manageable sailing in 40+ Knot winds, the Aleutka successfully combines them all to form a boat that will only truly please fellow extremists, but it will provide them with a safe, seaworthy, and distinctive cruiser.
One interesting note:
The original, prototype Aleutka was built entirely without lofting. The hull was
built in a backyard, and was taken from raw materials to a finished hull in one
month. The entire boat was built in less than six months.
