Aerocet Floats

Our summer vacation on Lake Coeur d Alene in Idaho prompted a morning’s drive up to Priest River and the home of Aerocet seaplane floats. I introduced myself as a retired part 135 operator from Alaska, and I got the red carpet treatment. A tour of the plant reveals the meticulous construction techniques for the fiberglass floats. I saw the insides of the attractive floats that Sonny uses so effectively flying the many floatplanes of Katmai Air on the Peninsula and between Anchorage and Brooks Camp. The aerodynamic float saves fuel and the rugged fiberglass construction saves on maintenance. Thomas Hamilton, the owner and chief, showed me around. The high moral and energy are palpable. Tom runs an enviably clean and organized shop. What I wanted to learn, and the reason I went there, was to determine the feasibility for me of Aerocet’s lauded amphibian option. What was the useful load penalty from the added weight, and what was the structural integrity of the mechanism.

Most Alaskan pilots elect to forgo the amphibian option. For one, we have plenty of water. Secondly, the weight of the amphibious mechanism causes the loss of at least one passenger or an equivalent amount of cargo due to that weight. A third element of concern involves the maintenance and reliability of the wheel mechanism.

When I was still flying passengers, not so long ago, a young aspiring inventor asked me to evaluate a mechanism he had developed for powering the floats on the water. Obviously an electric motor and propulsion system in each float imposes a cost of maintenance and a through hull complexity that offers little added utility to offset the added weight and maintenance cost.

Many of the same challenges of weight, complexity, maintenance and through-hull compromise, apply to the mechanisms and power units for amphibians. Tom has solved most of these concerns, though, through his own engineering and by manufacturing nearly all of the machine parts. (He has recently engineered and patented a seal that protects the bearings that are prone to damage.) His main gearbox completely isolates the retracted landing wheel just behind the step. The metalwork has the unmistakable look and feel of quality. Not surprising, considering the high end automated machine tool equipment that populates his facility. The shop exudes organization. It is squeaky clean, nothing extraneous lying around. This facility could well be a teaching study for highly organized manufacturing. The machinists themselves manufacture most of the components for the struts and the machining of the amphibian mechanism, wheel rims and part of the brakes. Hydraulic power drives the retraction and deployment, and clearly understandable instrument lights indicate the status on the actuator switch. My goal would be a 185 on amphibian Aerocets, not so much for the use of remote airstrips, most of which are gravel in Alaska, but for hangering the aircraft for maintenance and for winter operation. Since retirement, the need for passenger seats no longer dictates the choice.

Tom Hamilton, in addition to being a superb guide and promoter of his floats tells great flying stories. It seems that Tom has been a proponent of diving the nose of the floats through the top of a wave, “just two feet from the top,” of the oncoming wave when the wind and wave action is too strong to land crosswind and parallel to the swell. Indeed, there is rational for landing full flaps, slow and nearly flat in rough water as the tail first splash down against oncoming waves exerts undue stress on the ridged floats. A customer to whom he made such a suggestion did actually exercise the “nose in” maneuver off the Alaska coast as a result of an engine failure. The impact broke the struts, but the aircraft remained upright and afloat. The pilot and passengers, picked up by a fishing boat, attempted to tow the aircraft. The attempt failed; the plane capsized and sank. The aircraft was lost, but the Coast Guard found the floats intact more than a year later on a Gulf island nearly a hundred miles to the southeast. Says something for the integrity, does it not?

Tom encourages inventiveness and suggestions. I rather imagine that encouragement has something to do with the obvious high moral of his employees. This inventiveness results in the clearly superior integrity of his floats and in the quality of the mechanism of the amphibian. So, here goes. Tom, why not place the main gears on the outer surface of the floats, like the Grumman aircraft or the Catalina? It would leave the keel strip intact at the edge of the step. And for really far out, why not replace the spreader struts with an airfoil, a wing which might add enough lift to offset the weight penalty of the landing wheels and hydraulics. The small biplane wing could extend a short distance lateral to the floats providing a platform for fishing, easy chair or protection against the dock (Like on the China Clipper.) Such with little added weight might hold extra fuel and or a structure to support the main wheels. Well, such an airfoil might be a job for NASA at that, but I would like the added platform for fishing.

Thank you for the tour Tom.

Aerocet: http://www.aerocet.com/home.html