Icon A5 Splashes Down

Dav8or said:
Well using the Lake Amphibians built in the good ol' days of GA as an example since those are thought to be sensible choices now, I ask these questions-
  • How many Lakes were built total and over how many years?
  • What was their brand new price relative to middle class income of the period?
  • Would you as a buyer back then, have bought one?
  • Would you have just bought on old Super Cub on floats instead?
  • How is that Lake company doing now?
The point again is that money, value, wealth are all relative. To the vast majority of inhabitants of this planet you are already absurdly wealthy and the fact that you fly small private planes for fun already says you are blowing money in an unwise manor. You already understand what being absurdly wealthy is like, you just need to imagine scaling up understand buying a brand new A5.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't to compare the used value of a Lake to the new price of the Icon A5. My point that the utility of the A5 (aside from folding wings) could be surpassed for 1/4 of the cost or less.

I appreciate the lesson on how value and wealth are all relative, but in terms of GA in America (arguably the primary demographic of this website) the value of the A5 seems limited when better used options prevail. Even if my "wealth" were such that I could purchase an A5 with little concern for its impact on the checkbook I don't feel that I could ever rationalize the purchase when there are tons of other used amphibs (albeit not shiny new plastic) are available. I don't mean to say that the A5 should compete with used aircraft prices, but an almost $300K aircraft which will barely carry 2 full-size adults is going to have a very limited audience, even among the wealthy.

Lake's status as a company can be mirrored in dozens of other aircraft companies who faltered in recent decades. I don't think it says much about the product or company in general. If Icon is around in another decade I'll be surprised.
 
Last edited:
SoonerAviator said:
If Icon is around in another decade I'll be surprised.
Click to expand...

People similarly said that you can't sell an EV "golf cart" for $100'000. Since then Tesla sold 100'000 cars. The far majority of these were sold to people whose most expensive car before that was $40'000.

True disrupters don't play nice in an existing market - they go and create a new market for themselves.
 
deonb said:
People similarly said that you can't sell an EV "golf cart" for $100'000. Since then Tesla sold 100'000 cars. The far majority of these were sold to people whose most expensive car before that was $40'000.

True disrupters don't play nice in an existing market - they go and create a new market for themselves.
Click to expand...

No one said you couldn't make an EV . . . the Prius, Volt, Fisker Karma, etc had all been proven out before Tesla made the roadster. The difference in the Tesla, was that it didn't have a ton of limitations over a basic car, and offered outstanding performance in some areas, as well as appeals to a ton of people who could afford $100K. The A5 appeals to pilots and people who wish to be pilots who have $300K to spend (a much smaller group than Telsa had) on a toy which doesn't do anything better than a Cub on floats, Lake, SeaBee, etc. I just don't see the appeal.

Maybe they'll surprise me and "create" this market for themselves, but I wouldn't put my money on it.
 
SoonerAviator said:
My point wasn't to compare the used value of a Lake to the new price of the Icon A5. My point that the utility of the A5 (aside from folding wings) could be surpassed for 1/4 of the cost or less. [...]
Click to expand...

Wow, really? Brand new? I'm interested - please provide me with a link. :rolleyes:
 
SoonerAviator said:
No one said you couldn't make an EV . . . the Prius, Volt, Fisker Karma, etc had all been proven out before Tesla made the roadster. The difference in the Tesla, was that it didn't have a ton of limitations over a basic car, and offered outstanding performance in some areas, as well as appeals to a ton of people who could afford $100K. The A5 appeals to pilots and people who wish to be pilots who have $300K to spend (a much smaller group than Telsa had) on a toy which doesn't do anything better than a Cub on floats, Lake, SeaBee, etc. I just don't see the appeal.

Maybe they'll surprise me and "create" this market for themselves, but I wouldn't put my money on it.
Click to expand...


Let's put it differently,

The tesla is like a 1 million dollar amphib 4 seater that can go 1500nm with 4 people at 200kts.

The icon is like a $20k golf kart with some bells and whistles.


Sure a wealthy person could afford either but one will appeal to them as offering "value" the other is nothing more than a cool toy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This thread has gotten sort of silly as is the norm with brand new airplane threads. It's always- "For that much I could getta...!" sort of deal. Absolutely pointless.

So far I think it seems that most everyone thinks the A5 is a pretty cool little airplane. They will be quite busy filling the back orders for awhile. Eventually the sales will slow way down and likely they will go bankrupt... just like every other GA company in America these days. I'll be surprised if the "big three" traditional makes of Cessna, Piper and Beech are around in ten years time.

If the A5 turns out to be a really exceptional airplane, the assets of Icon will be sold off at pennies on the dollar to some investors that will resurrect production under a slightly different name. They too will fail. This story has played out over and over again for about three decades now.

During this time, some people will get A5s and absolutely love them. They will hit the used market and other folks with less money to burn will buy them and absolutely love them. Finally when the company is broke and parts availability is in question, prices will fall to where more average GA pilots can afford them and they will take the risk and absolutely love them.

We've all seen this story play out many times before. So I'm thrilled. A great plane will be available for me when I retire, live in the Florida Keys and can't get a medical anymore. :yes:
 
Dav8or said:
This thread has gotten sort of silly as is the norm with brand new airplane threads. It's always- "For that much I could getta...!" sort of deal. Absolutely pointless.

So far I think it seems that most everyone thinks the A5 is a pretty cool little airplane. They will be quite busy filling the back orders for awhile. Eventually the sales will slow way down and likely they will go bankrupt... just like every other GA company in America these days. I'll be surprised if the "big three" traditional makes of Cessna, Piper and Beech are around in ten years time.

If the A5 turns out to be a really exceptional airplane, the assets of Icon will be sold off at pennies on the dollar to some investors that will resurrect production under a slightly different name. They too will fail. This story has played out over and over again for about three decades now.

During this time, some people will get A5s and absolutely love them. They will hit the used market and other folks with less money to burn will buy them and absolutely love them. Finally when the company is broke and parts availability is in question, prices will fall to where more average GA pilots can afford them and they will take the risk and absolutely love them.

We've all seen this story play out many times before. So I'm thrilled. A great plane will be available for me when I retire, live in the Florida Keys and can't get a medical anymore. :yes:
Click to expand...

Meanwhile we can all talk about what we could get by spending the same amount of money we don't have on other things we don't need. It's fun and inane.
 
I think the Gulfstream G650 is priced a little high. There is no way I would ever buy one unless they lowered the price several million.
 
I still don't see what all the fuss was about. At Oshkosh I talked to one of the dealers of the weight shift trikes (our talk was cut short by the crash of that Meridian). These things really are flying golf carts, it all looked like it was held together by baling wire and duct tape. no cockpit, no doors, just a windshield. Something on the order of $120K.

Looked like fun, too. And the guy said they sell plenty, and they're the second largest user of Rotac engines.
 
German guy said:
Wow, really? Brand new? I'm interested - please provide me with a link. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You can build your own Quicksilver Sport 2S E-LSA, or buy their S-LSA version if you're willing to shell out $10k more and don't have 80-100 hours to build it. Add some amphibious floats and you're still way less than 25% of the cost of the Icon A5, brand new.

pj_01.jpg


I don't think I've had more fun flying an airplane than I have a Quicksilver.
 
Last edited:
Silvaire said:
Well I hope they're fun 'cause you're doing what, about 40? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Depends on how it's outfitted and if you have a large draggy passenger, but 65mph can be done.

The A5 isn't much faster.

But you don't need to go fast to have fun.
 
Turningfinal said:
You can build your own Quicksilver Sport 2S E-LSA, or buy their S-LSA version if you're willing to shell out $10k more and don't have 80-100 hours to build it. Add some amphibious floats and you're still way less than 25% of the cost of the Icon A5, brand new.
[...]
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. :rolleyes: As fun as the Quicksilvers seem to be - this is not even an apples vs. oranges comparison and they are still more than $50k on amphib floats in basic configuration.

The closest thing to the Icon is the Searey S-LSA, which comes with a starting price of $125k, according to this AOPA report and which is not nearly as refined as the Icon.

Compared to other modern LSA, which also seem to find their customers, the Icon is IMHO reasonably priced.
While other manufacturers of LSA can apparently live with relatively low volumes, it is however indeed the questions how many planes Icon needs to sell per year in order to survive.
 
German guy said:
Yeah, right. :rolleyes: As fun as the Quicksilvers seem to be - this is not even an apples vs. oranges comparison and they are still more than $50k on amphib floats in basic configuration.

The closest thing to the Icon is the Searey S-LSA, which comes with a starting price of $125k, according to this AOPA report and which is not nearly as refined as the Icon.

Compared to other modern LSA, which also seem to find their customers, the Icon is IMHO reasonably priced.
While other manufacturers of LSA can apparently live with relatively low volumes, it is however indeed the questions how many planes Icon needs to sell per year in order to survive.
Click to expand...

3hOjaIY7We.jpg


I disagree with your price - not sure where your math is coming from. The Sport 2SE (S-LSA) is $40k, amphibious Puddle Jumper floats are less than $7k.

If you decide to build the Sport 2S (E-LSA), their most expensive kit is $31k. Add the same floats for $7k, and even a BRS for $5k, and you're still well south of $50k.

Less than 1/4 the acquisition cost and certainly a fraction of the operating/maintenance costs. What makes this an apples/oranges comparison?
 
Last edited:
Turningfinal said:
If you read what I was responding to, we're talking utility of the A5.

I disagree with your price - not sure where your math is coming from. The Sport 2SE (S-LSA) is $40k, amphibious Puddle Jumper floats are less than $7k.

If you decide to build the Sport 2S (E-LSA), their most expensive kit is $31k. Add the same floats for $7k, and even a BRS for $5k, and you're still well south of $50k.

Less than 1/4 the acquisition cost and certainly a fraction of the operating/maintenance costs. What more utility does the A5 give?
Click to expand...

No bugs in your teeth?:D

Seriously, anything is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it's worth $250k to somebody, they'll buy it, if not, they won't. I'm in the latter camp but enough are in the former to have a pretty full order book.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
No bugs in your teeth?:D

Seriously, anything is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it's worth $250k to somebody, they'll buy it, if not, they won't. I'm in the latter camp but enough are in the former to have a pretty full order book.

Cheers
Click to expand...

:D

I'm really not trying to bash the A5 here...I'm just saying there's other affordable options for those looking for a brand new LSA with amphibious capabilities (and an optional BRS, to boot!).

If given the opportunity I'd give the A5 a shot too!
 
I'm one of the people fortunate enough that the A5 can be within my discretionary toy budget, and when my wife saw it she immediately wanted to put down a deposit. Had to talk her down from it.

The price isn't a problem, but the 310lbs payload definitely is.

I contacted Icon, since they do have another 170lbs available in their FAA exemption that they're not using right now, and it looks like they might be working on a version that has a higher payload.

However, if I have to choose between a hypothetical future Icon A5 with a higher payload, and a hypothetical future MVP.Aero, I'd go with the MVP.Aero.

Same price, but the MVP.Aero is even more useful.

However, this whole thing just shows how bad the LSA weight restriction is. Something like the MVP.Aero has the opportunity to really revitalize GA - it's close to the coolest thing ever.

However, if you really want to be able to use the vehicle like the MVP.Aero intends (in Boat configuration & Tent configuration) you need to be able to bring fishing gear / cooking / camping gear etc. which you can't - MVP.Aero suffers from the same 300lbs payload restriction as Icon does.

You really do need a realistic ~450lbs payload for 300nm range to make these crafts really come to life.
 
Last edited:
bullwinkle said:
Well...you are off base on a few things.

1) The Icon does *not* cruise over 100kt. It cruises at 85kt, top speed is 95kt. In other words, very slow for a modern composite LSA. In fact, the slowest modern composite 100hp LSA I've ever heard of. In comparison, my CTSW cruises easily at 115-120kt.
Click to expand...
I never said cruise, but I'll concede your little 5 kt argument on the Vh. I was looking at mph. Plus, that all comes back to that completely idiotic FAA weight restriction crap that shouldn't even exist. Having said that, I'll take the extra weight in safety and sacrifice speed. I don't mind being the slowest as long as I actually get there... I swear I've read a story about something like that... It had animals in it.


bullwinkle said:
2) What does the airplane type have to do with whether you are in a crusty old T-hanger full of bird droppings? Unless you are saying that "If you can afford an Icon you can afford a nicer hangar". That doesn't sound like a plus for the Icon, it sounds like a plus for having more money. :dunno:
Click to expand...
It doesn't, and wasn't referenced that way at all. The reference was that you can take it home and keep it there for free, rather than the hangar cost, thus saving money.

bullwinkle said:
3) Sure you can stick it on a trailer. But I for one don't want to subject a $250k airplane to rock chips and traffic accidents every time I want to fly. But I guess that goes back to "just have enough money that it doesn't bother you to trash it"...
Click to expand...
But you'd subject a $250k sports car or motor home to it? Buying a car like that to park it in a garage all day because you're scared of travelling with it is insane. The same applies to the plane that has just as much of a chance of getting rocks through the prop or a bird to the body as it does being damaged on the trailer, on the highway.

bullwinkle said:
4) As for "looking at those analog gauges that you love paying to repair"...have you actually looked at the Icon cockpit? All of the flight instruments are analog:
Click to expand...
I should have reworded that. I'm specifically talking about the "old" gauges. Plus, maybe you and I are looking at different pictures, but those don't look like any old booty gauge I've ever seen. That looks like what a cockpit should have been over 10 years ago! Gotta love all the naysayers holding everything back.

bullwinkle said:
I'm not sure that others are the ones that need to look at these things a little differently.
Click to expand...
Well I am. Unfortunately, the one's that like to argue semantics will - most likely - just keep their blinders on and go through life assured of their righteousness. I hope not.

But hey, what do I know? I just work here.
 
Last edited:
Archammer said:
I'm specifically talking about the "old" gauges. Plus, maybe you and I are looking at different pictures, but those don't look like any old booty gauge I've ever seen. That looks like what a cockpit should have been over 10 years ago!
Click to expand...

What the hell is a "Booty Gauge"??! The only booty gauge I know of is my eyeballs and hands. The only truly accurate way to assess a booty I know of. :yes::D

IMO, that panel does look like a Jet Ski, or motorcycle or something, but as an airplane panel it's pretty limited. It's marginal at best. It makes the assumption that the A5 pilot will only fly in severe clear like the brochure depicts and will never try to fly into controlled airspace or across a great distance. As long as the A5 pilot sticks to those perfect days within sight of the beach/yacht it'll be all good, but if this new 20 hour pilot decides to explore the margins... the plane offers little help.

As an existing pilot, I would like to see a more practical and functional panel than stylish. On the other hand, it is nice to see a panel that doesn't look like a 1950s laboratory computer.
 
Dav8or said:
What the hell is a "Booty Gauge"??! The only booty gauge I know of is my eyeballs and hands. The only truly accurate way to assess a booty I know of. :yes::D

IMO, that panel does look like a Jet Ski, or motorcycle or something, but as an airplane panel it's pretty limited. It's marginal at best. It makes the assumption that the A5 pilot will only fly in severe clear like the brochure depicts and will never try to fly into controlled airspace or across a great distance. As long as the A5 pilot sticks to those perfect days within sight of the beach/yacht it'll be all good, but if this new 20 hour pilot decides to explore the margins... the plane offers little help.

As an existing pilot, I would like to see a more practical and functional panel than stylish. On the other hand, it is nice to see a panel that doesn't look like a 1950s laboratory computer.
Click to expand...


Panels looking like a 1950s laboratory computer doesn't help market aviation to the lay person.

Cirrus seems to be the only company that has figured this out while (unlike icon) not dumbing down the capability of the panel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tmpendergrass said:
Panels looking like a 1950s laboratory computer doesn't help market aviation to the lay person.

Cirrus seems to be the only company that has figured this out while (unlike icon) not dumbing down the capability of the panel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

From an avionics standpoint, not the entire aircraft.

Cirrus G1000 with it's Perspective button panel was pretty slick five years ago. But the Cessna TTX G2000 panel with the touchscreen director is better.

In Experimental and SLSA world the Dynon Touch and Garmin G3x touch are state of the art and are arguably even better than the certified glass grandparent G1000 now over 10 years old.
 
d5by5 said:
From an avionics standpoint, not the entire aircraft.

Cirrus G1000 with it's Perspective button panel was pretty slick five years ago. But the Cessna TTX G2000 panel with the touchscreen director is better.

In Experimental and SLSA world the Dynon Touch and Garmin G3x touch are state of the art and are arguably even better than the certified glass grandparent G1000 now over 10 years old.
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention the the Columbia/Corvallis series as a good design. All other panels just seem to be a bunch of screens, gauges, and switches bolted into a CNCd piece of aluminum.

For the amount that new planes costs these days, the interiors should at least have the design, quality, and ergonomics comparable to that of my 5 year old BMW.

Maybe it's just me since I do design work for a living and I have an eye for this sort of stuff.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Tmpendergrass said:
I forgot to mention the the Columbia/Corvallis series as a good design. All other panels just seem to be a bunch of screens, gauges, and switches bolted into a CNCd piece of aluminum.

For the amount that new planes costs these days, the interiors should at least have the design, quality, and ergonomics comparable to that of my 5 year old BMW.

Maybe it's just me since I do design work for a living and I have an eye for this sort of stuff.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

Yeah and most BWM types trade their "old" cars in every other year :rolleyes2:

In a aircraft I really rather have a "bunch of screens, gauges, and switches bolted into a CNCd piece of aluminum" compared to a bunch of panels, sub panels and flashy pointless plastic stuff to break and rattle and be a PITA to work on down the line.

A clean and well laid out panel on simple powder coated aluminum FTW.


I've never had a student look at a standard issue six pack style panel and say "whoa, this isn't for me". If someone is that scared of the panel, I'm cool with them not becoming a pilot.
 
Last edited:
Tmpendergrass said:
Panels looking like a 1950s laboratory computer doesn't help market aviation to the lay person.

Cirrus seems to be the only company that has figured this out while (unlike icon) not dumbing down the capability of the panel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

d5by5 said:
From an avionics standpoint, not the entire aircraft.

Cirrus G1000 with it's Perspective button panel was pretty slick five years ago. But the Cessna TTX G2000 panel with the touchscreen director is better.

In Experimental and SLSA world the Dynon Touch and Garmin G3x touch are state of the art and are arguably even better than the certified glass grandparent G1000 now over 10 years old.
Click to expand...

Tmpendergrass said:
I forgot to mention the the Columbia/Corvallis series as a good design. All other panels just seem to be a bunch of screens, gauges, and switches bolted into a CNCd piece of aluminum.

For the amount that new planes costs these days, the interiors should at least have the design, quality, and ergonomics comparable to that of my 5 year old BMW.

Maybe it's just me since I do design work for a living and I have an eye for this sort of stuff.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

Agreed. Cirrus and Columbia get it. Also many of the new upcoming airplanes we are promised from over seas as well as the Mooney M10 seem to get the idea too. The glass panels make function and design a little easier to integrate. Back in the steam gauge days, it wasn't easy to make an attractive panel and functional panel come together and at some point in the '90s they gave up altogether.
 
Dav8or said:
Agreed. Cirrus and Columbia get it. Also many of the new upcoming airplanes we are promised from over seas as well as the Mooney M10 seem to get the idea too. The glass panels make function and design a little easier to integrate. Back in the steam gauge days, it wasn't easy to make an attractive panel and functional panel come together and at some point in the '90s they gave up altogether.
Click to expand...


This^

I wouldn't say people are "afraid of the panel", but when your asking half a mil or a new plane, it needs to offer and element of luxury not just functionality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Also, I love the tecnam Astore. Looks great inside and out, just wish they made a non light sport version with more speed and capability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tmpendergrass said:
Also, I love the tecnam Astore. Looks great inside and out, just wish they made a non light sport version with more speed and capability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Tecnam P2010.
 
d5by5 said:
The Tecnam P2010.
Click to expand...


Yep. With planes like that, I don't see how Cessna can stick around long. Much better options out there now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tmpendergrass said:
Yep. With planes like that, I don't see how Cessna can stick around long. Much better options out there now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


  1. Wait until the P2010 is actually certified and available for sale to see if it really is a threat. Right now it is not an option.
  2. Somehow both Cessna and Piper survived the Diamond DA20, DA40, the Liberty XL-2 and the Cirrus SR20. There is a resiliency to the old designs.
  3. I'm sure Textron is just about ready to dump the piston airplane business right about now anyhow and Piper is on the ropes again. The American airplane market is brutal. Tecnam could be betting the farm on this one, although I do believe they are supported by their government, so likely can take some pretty good losses.
 
I wonder how many SE pistons Cessna delivered in the last couple years. Of those, I wonder how many were to 141 schools.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I am sure that when Diamond or Cirrus were in developement, we heard the same kind of talk, and the same detractors, and people comparing a used piper or cessna. Now how many of them same are out buying old Diamonds or Cirrus. We still have people complaining about the BRS. Then again, I do occasionally ***** and moan about auto anti locks, airbags, and especially backup cameras.
So here'S to all the dreamers, Icon and terrafugia included. I say build it better and someone will hand you a check.
While we'really at it though, you guys that have been making the same old crap for a century now had better start rethinking. The new guys are stealing your lunch.
 
Tmpendergrass said:
I wonder how many SE pistons Cessna delivered in the last couple years. Of those, I wonder how many were to 141 schools.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer, but from what I've seen, Skyhawks- all flight schools. Skylanes- mostly individuals, some commercial. Skywagons- split between individuals and cargo operators. Corvallis- nobody.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top