Icon laying off employees....

Well at least they are revising their PA.

I still think it is a cool looking airplane and I would love to fly one and would even own one under the right conditions. However the price is way too high and I would be worried about customer service, factory support, parts availability, etc. down the road. So I would not buy one.
 
Waiting to see if Raptor comes through or folds their vapor ware project before a flying unit is delivered too. Icons purchase contract is wrong in so many ways. Who would even agree to that mess unless they were a complete moron.
 
They made a slick little amphib, I really like the plane, but man is management screwing this thing up now.

Just sell the dang plane and quit trying to still own the plane after the sale.
 
Can't understand what's up with the company. They have customers,a sellable aircraft,and a very interested group of pilots waiting ,to see how it does in the market place,although priced quite high for ,a toy. They may want to review their purchase agreement. After all the hype all these years,seems to be a bust.
 
It is difficult to deal with all the liability entailed in running a business. You build something and someone uses it and gets hurt, it can come back to you. Its true in a lot of businesses. You can try and insure against it, create a corporate veil to protect you etc, but it can continue to haunt you. As for the high price, look at the high prices of any plane now. A new Cessna 172 costs 350k! A new Carbon Cub costs 200k!
 
coloradobluesky said:
It is difficult to deal with all the liability entailed in running a business. You build something and someone uses it and gets hurt, it can come back to you. Its true in a lot of businesses. You can try and insure against it, create a corporate veil to protect you etc, but it can continue to haunt you. As for the high price, look at the high prices of any plane now. A new Cessna 172 costs 350k! A new Carbon Cub costs 200k!
Click to expand...

Think about the last sentence for half a second... What would you rather have, an Icon or a Carbon Cub? Anyone with a pulse makes the easy choice on that one, but somehow Icon still had customers lined up to buy their product.
 
Lachlan said:
Think about the last sentence for half a second... What would you rather have, an Icon or a Carbon Cub? Anyone with a pulse makes the easy choice on that one, but somehow Icon still had customers lined up to buy their product.
Click to expand...
While I would prefer the CC as well, I don't think it would be the easy choice for everyone. If you want an airplane for purely recreational purposes and live in an area with multiple lakes and rivers and some of these have waterfront restaurants, camping, etc., I could see the Icon or something similar being a fabulous choice. But as I said previously, there are two many actual and potential negatives right now.
 
Unit74 said:
Waiting to see if Raptor comes through or folds their vapor ware project before a flying unit is delivered too. Icons purchase contract is wrong in so many ways. Who would even agree to that mess unless they were a complete moron.
Click to expand...

I keep up with their weekly vids. Sure is taking long to build the first prototype. Painful.

I will say though, if they can pull it off, it's actually an aircraft that makes sense. 130K for a Raptor, or 250K for an Icon. I'll take a serious XC IFR cruising machine over a jet ski on wings any day. I just don't think they'll come through with what they promise.
 
Wasn't it Taylorcraft that went naked on liability some years back? Advertised the fact, and more or less made the company asset poor, and therefore a smaller target for the lawyers? Promised to close the doors if sued?

I kinda remember something about them changing hands, re-starting production, maybe? And making a tactical decision along those lines?
 
Art VanDelay said:
You Raptor guys interested in some magic beans I have for sale ?
Click to expand...
If they pull it off, it'll be absolutely awesome. I ain't holdin' my breath, though. There's no way you can build what I see as a canard'd mini-TBM for that price.
 
Paul Bertorelli has a good article on this subject this week.
 
Lachlan said:
Think about the last sentence for half a second... What would you rather have, an Icon or a Carbon Cub? Anyone with a pulse makes the easy choice on that one, but somehow Icon still had customers lined up to buy their product.
Click to expand...

I don't know, the icon sure is a sexy toy that will impress your other rich friends. The carbon cub not so much.
 
RalphInCA said:
I don't know, the icon sure is a sexy toy that will impress your other rich friends. The carbon cub not so much.
Click to expand...

If I was your friend (and trust me, I am!) I would be more impressed by the Carbon Cub than the can't-fly-with-a-passenger-and-full-fuel toy that the Icon will be. Just give the name some consideration. I con you into believing this company will ever produce any airplanes. I con you out of a $30,000 non-refundable deposit. I con, he cons, they con... either way, you fell for it.
 
Art VanDelay said:
The Carbon Cub takes up too much deck space on the yacht !
Click to expand...

Dang if you ain't right about that.

m5-4.jpg
 
Eclipse 2.0

The aircraft is a minor spinoff from the venture.

The musical 'The Producers' described the business model quite well.
 
weilke said:
Eclipse 2.0

The aircraft is a minor spinoff from the venture.

The musical 'The Producers' described the business model quite well.
Click to expand...

Eclipse is an amazing airplane. Was never a scam, although ill informed believe it was. But that was another time, so we shall move on.
 
Lachlan said:
If I was your friend (and trust me, I am!) I would be more impressed by the Carbon Cub than the can't-fly-with-a-passenger-and-full-fuel toy that the Icon will be. Just give the name some consideration. I con you into believing this company will ever produce any airplanes. I con you out of a $30,000 non-refundable deposit. I con, he cons, they con... either way, you fell for it.
Click to expand...

Can the Carbon Cub fly with two and full fuel once you put amphibious floats on it? How does it compare in price with the floats on? Without the floats the Cub is a different mission.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Yes.

Click to expand...

Actually no. I went to their website and as per their numbers-

Allowed gross- 1430 lbs (LSA compliant and increased gross with floats)
Empty weight- -896 lbs
Full fuel (25 x 6 lbs)- -150 lbs
Oil- (5 x 1.9 lbs)- -9.5 lbs
Floats- -215 lbs

Useful Load- 159.5 lbs

So no passenger at all from what these numbers show. Obviously the plane is really designed to operate at a much higher gross than this, so I'm sure you could break the law and be just fine, but legally no.

And the price? With floats, $241,440. Pretty much right there with the A5. If you add the BRS option to be more equal to the Icon, add $13,990 to the price and subtract 34.3 lbs from your useful load.

If you intend to operate within the legal requirements of LSA, this is no Icon A5 killer. It's not even all that great of an option as it burns more gas and can't go as far.
 
Dav8or said:
Actually no. I went to their website and as per their numbers-

Allowed gross- 1430 lbs (LSA compliant and increased gross with floats)
Empty weight- -896 lbs
Full fuel (25 x 6 lbs)- -150 lbs
Oil- (5 x 1.9 lbs)- -9.5 lbs
Floats- -215 lbs

Useful Load- 159.5 lbs

So no passenger at all from what these numbers show. Obviously the plane is really designed to operate at a much higher gross than this, so I'm sure you could break the law and be just fine, but legally no.

And the price? With floats, $241,440. Pretty much right there with the A5. If you add the BRS option to be more equal to the Icon, add $13,990 to the price and subtract 34.3 lbs from your useful load.

If you intend to operate within the legal requirements of LSA, this is no Icon A5 killer. It's not even all that great of an option as it burns more gas and can't go as far.
Click to expand...

You make some good points but the Carbon Cub is going to be MUCH more versatile than the A5. It can do rough and short field operations and also has a climb rate that the A5 couldn't dream of matching.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
You make some good points but the Carbon Cub is going to be MUCH more versatile than the A5. It can do rough and short field operations and also has a climb rate that the A5 couldn't dream of matching.
Click to expand...

Rough field with the floats on???! I guess if you get sick of landing on water and find out you really want to land on sandbars next to water, you can spend even more money and put wheels on it. :rolleyes:

I personally think it is absurd to think the Icon is an over priced "toy", but the Carbon Cub is a sound choice. In the big picture, if you have enough money to blow, go for either of them. I fully support that! For regular people, they are both pretty stupid.
 
Oh, well valid point, I guess you can put bush tires on the A5. Wait, no you can't. The CC is a much more versatile aircraft, and that's not disputable.

Of course they're both overpriced, impractical toys. I don't think I said otherwise.
 
They need to move the manufacturing to Mexico or China, where all the skilled, unskilled labor is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top