The Icon A5 is starting to attract buyers

Starting to attract buyers? I seem to recall they took a large number of orders and deposits long before production started.
 
Interesting demo of the box canyon retreat. 200' circle? Guess they've been practicing since the accident.
 
TylerSC said:
Are these really any better than a Searey?
Click to expand...

Is camping in a small holiday trailer better than setting up a tent?
Both serve the primary function fine, but there is a wee difference. For some folks. ;)
 
There was on, here on the Columbia River, at Desert Aire.
It was SUCH a dog! Will never replace a Cessna 180/185.
 
I'll buy a used one when they get down to 30k (or my great grandson will)
 
TylerSC said:
Are these really any better than a Searey?
Click to expand...
A5 is much better than Searey. Searey only looks okay to a guy who's used to the ragwing experimentals. Searey is possibly a better airplane, thanks to the option of more powerful engines and greater gross weight. But Icon is nowhere as scary. And face it, it's safer, unless you fly into a box canyon. Or at least I've not heard of A5 having a structural failure in flight yet. Maybe it's in the future though, then they'll become equal :-)
 
How do we compare the safety data on Searey to Icon?

Flying Icons are about 1/10th (probably less) of the number of flying Seareys.

Let us wait to compare until there is a near similar number of sales and years in flight to discuss. Then we might talk about relative safety.
 
The A5 doesn't fit my mission but it would be a fun plane to rent for the day.
 
zaitcev said:
A5 is much better than Searey. Searey only looks okay to a guy who's used to the ragwing experimentals. Searey is possibly a better airplane, thanks to the option of more powerful engines and greater gross weight. But Icon is nowhere as scary. And face it, it's safer, unless you fly into a box canyon. Or at least I've not heard of A5 having a structural failure in flight yet. Maybe it's in the future though, then they'll become equal :)
Click to expand...

Respectfully, what is scary about a Searey? There are no reports of structural failure, and no one has ever died in a Searey. The A5 is 4 knots faster and costs $120,000 more from the factory.
 
paflyer said:
They did something new and exciting re purchase contracts too.
Click to expand...

I don't know what genius thought up of that, but after the negative press they amended their purchasing contract. I just mean that when you watch the videos the plane looks like a joy to fly. Its sleek, has a neat cockpit design, and awesome visibility. I am usually in Florida once a year, I would love to go get the introductory flight just to have it in my logbook.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Click to expand...

"It can transport two people at a high speed cruise of 95kts"

mjl.gif


I think I'd rather have an Air-Cam if I'm just tooling around on the water. Multi time to boot!

1939_3.jpg
 
zaitcev said:
A5 is much better than Searey. Searey only looks okay to a guy who's used to the ragwing experimentals. Searey is possibly a better airplane, thanks to the option of more powerful engines and greater gross weight. But Icon is nowhere as scary. And face it, it's safer, unless you fly into a box canyon. Or at least I've not heard of A5 having a structural failure in flight yet. Maybe it's in the future though, then they'll become equal :)
Click to expand...

They don't seem to withstand hard landings on water though. Remember the sunk A5 in Florida (I think?)

One observation I have is that since the box canyon accident, I've seen A5's giving the dam and surrounding hills a lot greater berth than they used to when they fly in to the lake.
 
I saw this at Half Moon Bay Airport (on the Pacific coast) yesterday. The FAA database says it's a Seawind 3000 registered to a guy in Rhode Island. Long way from home.IMG_0210.JPG
 
Sac Arrow said:
...One observation I have is that since the box canyon accident, I've seen A5's giving the dam and surrounding hills a lot greater berth than they used to when they fly in to the lake.
Click to expand...
I sure hope so!
 
Palmpilot said:
I saw this at Half Moon Bay Airport (on the Pacific coast) yesterday. The FAA database says it's a Seawind 3000 registered to a guy in Rhode Island. Long way from home.View attachment 57194
Click to expand...
Those things are beautiful, but you have to wonder where the engine'prop are going to go in a crash...
 
Palmpilot said:
I saw this at Half Moon Bay Airport (on the Pacific coast) yesterday. The FAA database says it's a Seawind 3000 registered to a guy in Rhode Island. Long way from home.View attachment 57194
Click to expand...

That guy has either been to Half Moon Bay fairly frequently, or he's been there a while. This same plane was there on Oct 4th, and in the same spot, which makes me think he's been there the whole time. It is a beautiful plane.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Small float planes dont do well in waves. If you have waves that are big enough to make the airplane go back up in the air (like going off ski mogul) at landing speed, its too big to land on. What happens is you land on the wave and get thrown back up in the air and SMACK on the uphill side of the next wave and break something. And no, you are not going to be able to control exactly where you land on the moving waves. If the waves are much more than ripples, things can start breaking. You might get lucky and re-land on the downhill side smoothly after getting thrown back up. Get unlucky and you break something.

There are a LOT more hazards with a float plane than landing at maintained airports. Rocks and logs just under the water surface that you cant see is another. If in doubt go to the airport and land on a maintained and monitored runway (another reason why you need an amphib).
 
FastEddieB said:
I did not mean to imply there was.
Click to expand...
Well, there never was a structural failure of a properly built and maintained SeaRey either. Buuuut:

"After recovering the airplane it was examined at the factory with FAA representatives present. When the fabric covering was removed it was reported that the two AN-4A bolts for the strut attachment had been installed incorrectly. The report said the strut attach plate was supported on the bolt threads. One bolt was said to show evidence of corrosion at present in the failure plane. No provision was made for inspection of the attachment as specified in the construction manual. According to a factory representative, the airplane was extensively damaged and repaired by the original owner after a hangar collapse. The aircraft is said to have accumulated more than 800 hours by the subsequent owner."

Of course as we know, these things can happen to a 737, like the one that burned up in China.
 
Personal experience: The Searay doesn't have differential brakes.
It may not mean much until you are on a hard surface in a crosswind. Then it gets exciting.
 
Shepherd said:
Personal experience: The Searay doesn't have differential brakes.
It may not mean much until you are on a hard surface in a crosswind. Then it gets exciting.
Click to expand...

I would think that is something a builder could correct without a lot of difficulty?
 
Palmpilot said:
I saw this at Half Moon Bay Airport (on the Pacific coast) yesterday. The FAA database says it's a Seawind 3000 registered to a guy in Rhode Island. Long way from home.View attachment 57194
Click to expand...

There was a Seawind flight qualities report in the EAA magazine about 20 years ago that I recall seemed to be pretty favourable overall - the occasional kitplane can be bloody awful to fly.

That high thrust line with the 300 hp Lycoming might be a biceps builder trying to bring the nose up on takeoff on land, but I think on water, the way the step is designed and the smaller moment arm for rotation, it works quite well as remember reading. :) The only thing that I don't really like is those sponsons on the end of the wings must make it difficult to bring up alongside all but the lowest profile docks.
 
How many know what a P-5M is?
They were limited to 5' waves and 20' swells
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0264.JPG
    IMG_0264.JPG
    227.6 KB · Views: 23
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top