Why Aerocet 2200's cost so much

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

Post Reply
marathonrunner
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:49 am

Why Aerocet 2200's cost so much

Post by marathonrunner »

I posted that I had a new pair of 2200 Aerocets that I could sell in the lower 48 or they would be transported to Alaska by the end of the month. I gave my contact information and almost all the inquiries were wanting to know how they could be 7000.00 more that Super Cub floats and rigging.

It is really simple. You cannot compare them to a cub as they have nothing in common with the deck up portion except the struts and flying wires and even those are a different size. All the rigging for the 170 and 172 series more closely resemble that of the 180/185 and 206 rigging. All the porkchops and other parts deck up cost way more to manufacture. I checked with Seaplanes West who have the STC for the 182 series and their deck up kit is within dollars of the 170 deck up kit. Many parts are supplied by Aerocet and that cost is passed on without markup to the customer. The manufacturer and supplier of all the other PMA parts for the deck up kit is making a very small amount on the parts. I am getting 1000.00 only for the paperwork/STC. My investment and time will NEVER be recovered in my lifetime or my kids and grandkids. There are only so many planes with float kits and then only so many who would want to replace the underfloated aluminum floats still available.

Taking the Cub out of the picture at just under 30,000.00 complete, the 170/172 is 37,000.00 and the 3500's for the 180/185 is 45,000.00. The price was raised on them last September when after doing the math Aerocet discovered it was losing money on every set sold to date. EDO is basically out of business, Bauman as well. That leaves Wipline and Aerocet. I have heard conflicting stories on PK but having flown a 170 on them years ago they took a lot of water to get off but were great in rough water.

Anyone who has flown on Edo 2000's or the 2130's is well aware how woefully underfloated they are. I pestered Aerocet for years when they first came out with the 2200's to get them certified on the 170/172 series. They were correct in their assessment that the market was not there. I went ahead and with much help from them finally got the STC for the 170 and straight tail 172 series.

We acquired a slant tail 172 floatplane and put 2200's on it and flew it up to Alaska last October. When the lakes turn to water the flight test will be completed and they will be added to the existing STC.

I have had people ask me what it would take to get the Scouts or also the PA-12 certified on Aerocets. I have told them get me an airplane I can put in Experimental category and 100,000.00 dollars and I will let you know when I need more money.

They are not inexpensive but they are the best and comparing them to what is now approved is comparing Yugos to Cadillacs or BMW's. They have 4 wheels and get you down the road but....

Hope this clears up some confusion

Cheers and happy flying
It's not done till it's overdone
User avatar
Ron Smith
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Why Aerocet 2200's cost so much

Post by Ron Smith »

I purchased the STC for my 52 170B with Avcon, Sportsman Stol and Micro VGs. The safety of increased flotation and shorter takeoffs were worth the added expense. I have flown floatplanes in Alaska for 40 years in all weather conditions(sometimes not on purpose).Weather reporting used to be nonexistent so if you were on a 4 hour flight thru 2 passes on floats there was a point of no turnaround and you had deal with destination weather. Even today destination weather can change from 0 wind to blowing 30 in a 2 hour flight, Much safer.
Post Reply