What Happened To The ICON A5?

Start your Pilot Journey Today lookupflightac...
On April 4 2024, Icon Aircraft declared chapter 11 Bankruptcy. It isn't clear exactly why a company who raised over $60 million and had over 1,000 deposits came to a halt. But this video hopes to shed some light on what potentially caused the downturn of the Icon A5 . A true modern achievement in GA.
Seamax aircraft • Freedom Of Flying Just...
Super petrel aircraft • Super Petrel Light Sp...
Used airplanes for sale www.aeroavion.com

[@L123Alpha]

I was an early position holder - placed an order when it was priced at ~$150K, flew the A5 in 2018 and was extremely impressed with the plane, tons of fun. It really is a great plane; anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about. BUT, the price increases and restrictive terms made me cancel the order. Zero interest at $350K. Icon took on enormous overhead based on their belief that they could sell them in big volumes, obviously unrealistic in hindsight. After I cancelled my order I told the Icon leadership the company would eventually declare bankruptcy and be restructured at a cost structure able to support selling the A5 at a marketable price. Here we are, and we shall see.

[@BobbyGeneric145]

Did they honor your 150 or did you have to put in more?

[@L123Alpha]

@@BobbyGeneric145 I cancelled my order and got the $5K deposit back. It’s a shame, because the plane really is a joy to fly. (The one video I’ve posted was my demo flight)

[@MarchTwentyfour-t8z]

Good to see your comment. I have been planning to buy one. I don't have the price shock as a lot do because when I first saw the Icon A5 it was already $400k. I'm very happy to read that you experienced flying it and still today say that it was a great plane. I hope they get restructured and the Icon A5 remains available as is. Fingers crossed 🤞

[@L123Alpha]

@@MarchTwentyfour-t8z I hope the new owners succeed in restructuring the business for a healthy future. The A5 really is impressive - I happened to look at my logbook yesterday and smiled when I saw the entry for 1.6 hrs in the A5, including a several water landings. Great control harmony, amazing stall performance. More power would be nice, but not really needed. Let me know if you get one!

[@jaseg6673]

I work on these airplanes frequently. We have 3 on our field, and work closely with the company. Communication with them is very good, however maintenance is excessive, and the number of safety directives and service letters on the planes are astounding. That coupled with the high purchase price, and the very limited mission, its customer base is very very niche.

[@robertg9514]

When this first was proposed, it was supposed to be AFFORDABLE…..and the rest is history.

[@TRC98]

If it wasnt for Microsoft Flight Sim I doubt I would have ever heard of these guys

[@ColtonRMagby]

The Icon A5 has always looked great to me, but the price is at a level where I'd rather have a sailboat. Sailboats are a LOT more practical.

[@PRH123]

And good used sailboats are often pretty inexpensive...

[@cfdfirefighter]

I agree on the price. At that high there are far better planes. And a dedicated boat would be cheaper and more practical.

[@ColtonRMagby]

@@cfdfirefighter And safer. The only way for a boat prop to spin is for the boat to be in gear. An airplane propellor spins as long as the engine is running, which means a fatal accident is far more likely.

[@ColtonRMagby]

@@PRH123 It depends on what boat you're looking at, who's selling it, and what shape it's in. All those things dictate the price.

[@alanaldpal950]

Comparing a sailboat to an aircraft ? For $400K I would rather spend $10 on a hammer and still have $399,990 left, and a hammer is way more practical.

[@tenlittleindians]

A beautiful airplane but twice what it should cost.

[@AlexanderBingham]

They never streamlined the manufacturing process. Which made the costs outrageous due to their inefficient manufacturing process. Seemed well built, but small batch and hand built is always going to make the price higher than a market can swallow.

[@johnporter5828]

The private airplane market is insane because of costs. Thats's why I quit flying years ago. However, I use the Microsoft flying simulator, and fly the A5 from there. With their worldwide maps, I use it to explore the worlds rivers and coasts. Almost as good as being there in real life, and tens of thousands of $ cheaper !

[@Mike-01234]

That's why I built an aerolite 103 I live in AZ lots of open space to fly it around. When I retire going to buy 100 acres have my own air strip. Certified GA is for rich people.

[@nsh1980]

@@Mike-01234that sounds really cool

[@jerryshort1026]

I believe they also required an onboard camera recording while operating and they owned the camera and recording. Nobody likes being told they have to be watched and recorded while enjoying their own flying time.

[@PRH123]

wow... seems that would drive at least half their potential customers away right at the start....

[@KitYeeScott]

It was their initial ‘buyer’s agreement’ that drove their customers away. It called for not only a ‘black box’ that recorded all your flight information, but a cockpit voice recorder, and you couldn’t sell the airplane unless the company approved the buyer! Potential Customers heard that, walked away, and combined with the massive price increases, never looked again.

[@johnqdoe]

@@KitYeeScott Blame regulators not Icon. Your opinions are misinformed.

[@Mike-01234]

@@KitYeeScott I thought you could only sell it back to them not allowed to sell it used at all later they dropped that idea. I never saw one for years for sale I suppose that was also due to the small number of them sold. Searay much better deal although I just checked their website Progressive Aerodyne SeaRay looks like the website is down says account suspended. Could be lack of payment maybe they went out of business also.

[@cogitoergospud1]

@@johnqdoeUhm, that was not an uninformed opinion, lol. It was a statement of fact. If regulators required it, Icon could not have dropped it like a hot potato. Which they did.

[@Factory400]

What happened? They ended up with a $250k flying jet-ski. Calling it a limited market is the understatement of the decade. Early on.....they focused on looking cool. Spending gobs of cash at shows like Oshkosh. Of course they massively underestimated the final cost and delivery schedule. Such a wasted effort.

[@vsznry]

No engineering is a wasted effort. tf? Someone else will learn from their achievements & failures. This thing is perfect for Florida Keyes & Hawaii.

[@PRH123]

Pretty typical history of a light aircraft company. Optimistically overestimated the potential market. Oversold themselves and their product, and too soon. They got further than most though. They wanted to create and expand a niche that didn't exist before. Admirable concept. Trivializing aircraft operation in advertising though was a mistake. Aircraft just can't be as simple as jet skis. Airplanes and flying are airplanes and flying, they couldn't change that.

[@ycplum7062]

Flying Jet-ski/ATV, whatever. For what is effectively a weekend recreational vehicle, it was priced as an yacht or off-road capable pickup truck, larger and more capable vehicles that can be used all the time.

[@AlanMydland-fq2vs]

they ate good for a while😂

[@marcrodstein1745]

No, a $389K flying jetski.

[@timaidley7801]

It's a shame that this comes literally five weeks after they announced a 60 lbs gross weight increase with the four-bladed propeller. The 430 lbs useful load always seemed ridiculously small to me, and would really limit its ability to carry two adults. The increased useful load of 490 lbs still isn't great, but at least you've got a reasonable chance of being able to fly with a friend and have enough load to fill up with more than an hour of fuel.

[@stonehorn4641]

None of it made sense. I own an SR22 (gen 1, bought used), and I remember guys talking about considering selling their planes to get an Icon A5, and I never understood it. None of them ended up buying one though.

[@caribbeanaviator1964]

They put wings on an underpowered see-doo and charge 400K for it. Wonder why it failed

[@jtjames79]

Should only be a couple more years until I can afford to have a rotating detonation engine 3D printed in China for about the same price as a lawn mower engine. A flying Sea-Doo is very close to what I want to make for myself.

[@segredosdotiosam9989]

Hater.

[@Mike-01234]

They had those weird contract where owners could only sell it back to them later they dropped that language I was always wondering why never saw any used ones on the market. They probalby lost lot of value quickly probably why ICON didn't want them being sold privately they didn't want to compete with a used market.

[@jtjames79]

@@Mike-01234 The Court's forgetting that the doctrine of first sale exists is one of the greatest failures of modern courts.

[@quinncide]

@@jtjames79*That’s* one of the greatest failures of modern courts??

[@marksanders4815]

I'm pissed and I don't even fly. My CNC machine shop is right down the street from them in Vacaville CA and I watch the test flights all the time. I saw so many I thought they were doing great. Bummer

[@jeffhudson7569]

I live in Browns Valley. I've watched the I5 fly at Nut tree all the time. My house is on downwind 2/20.

[@marksanders4815]

@@jeffhudson7569 it kinda gives me a little pride to see something so cool and interesting to come out of Vacaville. Hopefully they can restructure and come out of it.

[@jeffhudson7569]

@@marksanders4815 I agree. I haven't held a valid medical since moving to California, But if I had one I would to have loved training in an Icon.

[@IconicFlight]

They are still open, still selling and still servicing. Restructuring debt like Vans (currently) and most airlines.

[@marksanders4815]

@@IconicFlight just saw one flying day before yesterday. Hopefully I'm just jumping the gun but this video wasn't making their situation sound too promising.

[@joeg5414]

I just remember that Roy Halladay crash. That really hurt them

[@xtnuser5338]

I cannot say they did it on purpose, but a lot of startups do this crap: 1. Come up with something that sounds amazing. 2. Claim it will be inexpensive and revolutionary. 3. Put most of their efforts into raising investor money. 4. Pay themselves way too much and spend the rest of the money in stupid ways. 5. Over promise and under deliver. 6. File bankruptcy so they don't have to pay anybody back. 7. Walk away having elevated their own lifestyle using other peoples' monies without consequence. They're looking for somebody to buy the company? They're looking for a chump. They're looking for some moron to pay a positive amount for an entity that has a negative net worth. It's just a way to grab some more "other people's money" on the way out.

[@johnqdoe]

The founder/designer is a USAF pilot. Regulations make it expensive. Lovely people like you turn opinion against it.

[@xtnuser5338]

@@johnqdoe Like I said, I cannot claim this particular company is doing it. But even if I was claiming that, are you defending against it by suggesting that a USAF pilot cannot succumb to temptation and self interest like so many people do? And since I didn't claim this particular company is doing it, but instead only outlined what many startups do, I'm not turning opinion against it.

[@manfredstrappen7491]

@@johnqdoe Regulations don’t make it expensive. Lawyers/insurers make it expensive.

[@huzcer]

@@johnqdoe USAF pilot with a bachelor degree in mechanical engineering. basically proved that he didn't know anything about manufacturing airplanes. Competitor offerings were better at half the price.

[@ellomirza]

You know people have great ideas and want to do good in the world but have to force everything through the financial eye of the needle? What a cynical holier than thou view. Everyone is a crook except for you right?

[@briankimmell7960]

My friends dad had one. He loved it

[@mikedempsey1041]

It's an interesting case study on aviation business and aircraft manufacturing. While doing aviation consulting about a decade ago, my business partner questioned whether there was a market for this type of airplane. The original price was enticing, I considered buying one with a partnership agreement, but due to the slow development/certification, it was a wait and see. My business partner was an old school businessman, told me it wouldn't make it based on the limited demand for a seaplane, which is usually the case. His opinion on the flying car concept was a hilarious take on reality, which I still totally understand that one, and please...never invest in a company promising a flying car! Nonetheless, the Icon-5 unfortunately peaked it's demand and found that selling recreational airplanes to be a tough go. Despite the clever design and features, it probably didn't have a chance. The better option for aircraft development, is to use the engineering talent not in design, but manufacturing. An automated construction method that provides an inexpensive airframe with higher quality, along with lower cost of ownership, at that point a 4 seat single engine would sell very well. Think Henry Ford type of out of the box production thinking, and economy of scale, you probably have a successful business model.

[@louisvanrijn3964]

Some remarks on the flying cars in general. A sea-land aircraft can fly and land on a lake (not the sea) and on airfields. Imagine the footprint on a map. A flying car can fly, land on an airfield and drive over all existing roads in the world. Compare that footprint on a map. This is essentially different. The market is much bigger, as the transport envelope is hughe. The technical challenges are much higher, however. Flying mass, folding mechanisms, and road and air legislation togheter. The high price is compensated by the transport envelope, which is virtually unlimited. So: Think out of the box.

[@mikedempsey1041]

Too many compromises for the price. A flying car with all it's weight and limited performance, whether you are driving it or flying it, doesn't match better alternatives available as a choice. The fact you have to drive to the airport anyway, doesn't solve the problem. We all have an ideal, but what is often the last component thought out is the cost for limited performance. As long as it has been tried, it is very unsuccessful and will never have a market for the ROI...and that is a fact.

[@johnqdoe]

Niche companies should be able and encouraged to survive. It’s important for innovation and human progress. Unfortunately profit is everyone’s God in the system we’ve created.

[@RodsteinFL]

A flying car will always be a lousy plane and a lousy car. Too many compromises.

[@seaplaneguy1]

@@louisvanrijn3964 I am working on a roadable seaplane that lands and takeoff from roads. No airport needed. Yes, My State will give me a permit to use roads, so long as I pay road tax in fuel.

[@southnc63]

I believe a weight exemption was required on their first variant. And then you have much better offerings from Searey, Super Petrel, and others that are not only cheaper and safer, but already have a strong established customer base.

[@OzzySafa]

Was icon the only place where they could overhaul the airframe? So now are they going to run courses for mechanics to be certified to carry out these overhauls for the current owners of the aircraft. If not wonder what the 2nd hand value is now. Hmmm interesting to see how this pans out.

[@dontbanmebrodontbanme5403]

I remember seeing this plane when it was closer to the $400K mark and said the only people who would be interested in a plane that expensive and that limited were rich people with money to burn. But I still thought they would succeed. I had no idea about 1. you have to bring the PLANE back for a frame overhaul at 2k hours and 2. you can't sue them if you crash? I mean, what other conclusion can you draw other than even they don't trust the plane they were putting out? It's not surprising they went bankrupt!

[@cogitoergospud1]

What other conclusions? Uhm, how about RATIONAL ones. It’s a SEAPLANE made from composite. An inspection every 10-15 years (for the average 200 hr/yr usage) is reasonable, and an agreement not to sue is based on the market being inclusive of SPORT pilots. If someone wants to buy a sport plane, not avail themselves of training, and then crash, perhaps they should sue themselves, and not the manufacturer. It’s called, uhm, what’s that phrase again, “personal responsibility.” Or, we could just have a nanny state, with the mantra “If you’ve been injured, somebody somewhere owes YOU money!” 🙄

[@InMyBrz]

People with more money than brains

[@anthonyprose4965]

One of my neighbors has one of these. I chuckle every time I see him drive down the street towing his airplane on a trailer. He loves the thing.

[@segredosdotiosam9989]

Why Did you chuckle? Envy?

[@anthonyprose4965]

@@segredosdotiosam9989 I chuckle because towing an airplane looks funny. It's ironic. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to be a judgmental jerk?

[@redjaypictures4528]

That actually really sucks, i really loved the concept of this plane, hopefully somebody can end up filling this niche in the world of flying

[@willdogs4286]

Or maybe buying the company and all their assets and actually delivering a good product at a reasonable price. I really like the plane, but over $400k for a toy is unthinkable.

[@antontsau]

Vickers Wave

[@Alexander-cq9tv]

Ive been a long time dreamer of owning an A5. It was hard watching the price go up like it did, but never did any research into the situation. Definitely sucks hearing this news. Thanks for the info dump!

[@RARenfield]

I was position holder #1640. Such a sad story. Getting my deposit back was a struggle. I'm curious how much the executives took from the company. Each time they brought on a new exec, the price went up. I still fly the Parkzone Icon A5 RC model. It's fun on the lake.

[@Rico11b]

It cost to darn much!!! It was/is a great plane, but damn the price is just to high for what it is. It was basically a jetski with wings, but they tried selling it as a new Cessna 172. However, the 172 is much more practical for about the same money. It was a slow plane without much range, and a crazy high price. All that equals fail.

[@nostradamus7648]

You could buy a nice boat for that price

[@Stubones999]

They changed their policies that made it sort of like a lease rather than purchase of the aircraft. What I was told was even if you owned the aircraft, they required you to have THEM do all service of your aircraft...

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Very informative video, thanks. The entire ICON operation at Santa Monica Airport (KSMO as seen in your opening sequence) was very sloppy. After a very brief and almost laughable 'preflight,' the female company demo pilot did not conduct any semblance of a decent cockpit briefing, and as a Commercial Pilot, the entire experience was troubling to me. I'd heard that a passenger on a demo flight there in 2018 was seriously injured and hospitalized due to lack of an adequate egress briefing in the airplane with that same demo pilot.

[@paradoxicalcat7173]

Correct, and the crash itself was due to the design of this thing. Deathtrap. Would never fly in one.

[@CaptainC6969]

I got to fly a demo flight of one and land on the water. One of the most memorable experiences of my life

[@3nate22]

Thanks Mojo for your informative videos.

[@Anonymous99997]

In my opinion, the LSA constraints are what killed the A5. They wanted to be an Amphibious Cirrus, but could hold enough or go far enough for it to be a practical design. Perhaps MOSAIC will make way for a more practical version of this type of plane in the future. I do have to admit, the folding wings and trailer ability was very cool.

[@TChalla007]

Silent Yachts, the solar yacht company also filed Bankruptcy.

[@nostradamus7648]

Sounds like another green mistake. Eco terrorists always get it wrong. 😂

[@bluessandman2666]

They're super silent now...

[@jamesphelps1958]

Yeah but they’re restricting under a new investor. They’ll be well positioned with a clean balance sheet. Needed to happen

[@easternpa2]

I learned about the A5 from the Halladay crash. We loved him here in Philadelphia.

[@thestimp1]

I worked with them as a contractor, they were sold to a Chinese company and didn't produce shit due to politics within the company and greed. They shit the bed with a great product and I hope someone takes their IP to keep producing, but the 400k price tag that people were seeing after a 250k promise was just fucking stupid. They cost 120k to produce in parts. I had a plan to fix the company but I was shit on and they sourced to Mexico with zero planning besides " oh it will be cheaper!" it was the brains behind the operation that failed, not the "cost", typical in a startup, ego's above product.

[@vsznry]

not to mention the bad PR about the crashes, which were all pilot error i believe according to FAA.

[@TheChromeRonin]

Get back to Light Sport or Experimental, and allow the designs to live on. Please!

[@PRH123]

​@@vsznry pilot error undoubtedly, but some suspect that the way they advertised the aircraft contributed to the given pilots irresponsible attitude...

[@thestimp1]

@@vsznry the one baseball player crash he was high as a kite!

[@nostradamus7648]

​@@thestimp1 Didn't stop John Denver. 😂 Too Soon?

[@johnbecker1996]

If they could have sold them for $150K, they would have been fine. But when a company tells you you have to overhaul the airframe every 2,000 hours? (Like any of these would ever get to 2,000 - c'mon, it's a "fly around the patch" toy, not a cross-country machine.) And then the price triples? Overhyped, oversold, underdelivered.

[@gregentclemory9285]

What about icon telling you that you had to train with them or they had to approve you for the purchase or they had to approve who you would sell it to or the fact that they made you do maintenance through them or the fact that they raised the price to over triple

[@harrisonsimmons8367]

Cirrus does the same shit

[@carlosfeliciano1461]

Overpricing is killing al GA aviation in all terms and nobody is doing anything, other that raising prices more. Even SLSA, EAB are going nuts, and those companies filing bankruptcy is the result, $250+/hr or more is a price most aspiring pilots can not pay. Vans Aircraft bankruptcy too, with An RV12 started in less than $45k kit, now is gone beyond $100k, $150k ready to fly? when this new class was suposed to be reasonable, affordable, a Cessna 172 beyond $500k? Cirrus almost a $1Million? Really you think thats ok,No way, I was a wannabe pilot, doing it out of my pocket, no grants, 68hrs completed for PPL, help from nobody and quit! sad but I quited.

[@boostedbadboyzx12r31]

Bingo

[@PRH123]

RV12 SLSA at 190k new is actually a great price for an aircraft. Planes are individually hand built in micro amounts, and they last a long time.... The cost has outpaced inflation for sure, but it's not the only thing to do so... That being said 250 for a 172 wet is more than 5 times the cost I paid with an instructor when training in the early 90's.

[@carlosfeliciano1461]

@@PRH123 For me As I said, I was planing on gettin a Kit, no longer As I cant afford them, in the 90s I paid between $45@$75(included $15 for Instructor, today instructors charge $50+up $75/hr more than Engineers opr Doctors ,being pushed by the GA overpricing, some never attained University, just the Aviation costly training)added Landing Fees that we void in the 90s now are placed, $9/landing, abusive)$190k for a 2 place restricted aircraft not a good idea, an LSa for more the cost of a concrete home...not worth.

[@tonyreid833]

Bidenomics at work

[@AlanMydland-fq2vs]

its out of reach for most people and then the regulation😢

[@747driver3]

I sat in one recently. It’s a cramped toy. It has almost no useful load.

[@hansolo7205]

You mentioned the company had Chinese investors and production was moved to Mexico. Wondering if the company can stay afloat IF it had moved to China instead.

[@MaxRovensky]

It was unreasonably expensive, like most new GA aircraft

[@johnqdoe]

Blame regulators not Icon. Crony capitalism.

[@paradoxicalcat7173]

What regulation made them a crap company?

[@paulcanon5533]

Private aviation is very expensive. For most, it is primarily a toy. AA-5 owner here.

[@1976axerhand]

Isn't that plane the one Matt holiday crashed?

[@paradoxicalcat7173]

The guy high on drugs? Yes.

[@samadams7224]

This makes me sad. I had planned to buy one in a couple years.

[@simeon2851]

The SeaRay is a simpler and much cheaper option .

[@leedaero]

When I saw that they made the instrument panel look like an automobile I had doubts about its future success.

[@miodice3]

Very well made video, always loved this plane and enjoyed your overview!

[@robertspivey46]

I commented on the original video when he was introducing it. He was pricing himself out of business before he got it up and selling good. He responded by “saying get two or three people and by interest in it.”😂😂😂

[@x-stream]

Everyone mentions the price, but let's be honest, it's the dollar. It's not worth anything anymore, especially if you're Manufacturing in America

[@charlesvt2010]

Mike it's such a fun fly , loved fling it , I wanted one very badly but the contact an themselves making me see many red flags , so didn't, still thinking of getting a used one , funnest plane for weekend playing, it's a great toy

[@EJWash57]

The Super Petrel will fill the hole.

[@jeffshull40]

Got a Super Petrel XP coming in ~ 6 months!! Can’t wait! 915is Baby!

[@EJWash57]

@@jeffshull40 I just saw it for the first time. Mentioned in Kit Planes. Looks like fun. Enjoy!

[@ODGreenZa]

Served very little purpose for such a high price point. If they were smart they would have dropped the price by a huge amount and made it more affordable to GA enthusiasts. Its only a 2 seater low endurance and not much payload. Cant be asking that sort of price for a gymic

[@catherinesarah5831]

🦘🇦🇺Thank you for the update. I hope it’s a good learning curve for them & they get their act together. 🙏

[@nostradamus7648]

Screw the Chinese

[@brandonvillalobos8008]

I flew one and loved it. Such a small niche though…hard to really thrive as a manufacturer.

[@IconicFlight]

Mike, there was a lot of old information you were putting out that is on the internet but has been corrected or just wrong. And don't get started with some of the haters below who clearly are in one camp or another. I think you know someone who sells ICONs in Texas that you need to talk to and clear up your misunderstandings. Not sure if you have another airframe you prefer or get sponsored which may forbid the conversation, but talk to him and at least have a little more clearity (on or off mic). For me, I obviously love the look and flying characteristics of the ICON A5 (and yes the performance for what it was designed to do it does, especially with a 4-blade prop and increased weight mod my airframe will have a 500lb useful load). Of course it was never designed to takeoff in 300ft, 4000ft/min climb and 8hr endurance (my bladder has a 2hr limit🤣). I don't hate on any other models and would love to fly them all. They all have goods and bad. Overall for the market though, all these manufactures provide diversity of looks, finish, performance, options, and price (Yes ICON is at the upper end, but some would say $1.3mil for a new Cirrus is ridiculous, yet others don't). It's like football-You may be a Cowboy's Fan and you support your team, but you gotta love the game as a whole and wanted it to be strong sport in the future. Same for me in the Amphibious LSA world. ICON is still open, selling, servicing and supporting. Not hate'n, just saying...

[@jackwickman2403]

How will the new weight specs for light sport effect Icon's ability to add more power and payload? Wasn't the LSA weight limit their root engineering problem?

[@bernieschiff5919]

The new MOSAIC rules will allow for weight increases, as it is, the A5 is underpowered. A new organization might bring it back with a Rotax 916, turbocharged with about 140 hp for takeoff. Look for the price to probably continue going up.

[@nikolaispence4370]

Hopefully they can restructure and keep going forward as a viable business. Kudos to them for doing something different.

[@KillboxAlpha]

I helped them set up their production line in Vacaville, and then later in Mexico when they moved. I always thought it was a neat (and niche) aircraft, but it seemed overpriced from the start. Still, it's a shame that they failed.

[@ProPilotPete]

It’s just a jet ski with wings. Way over priced. I get it, certification takes a ton of money, but experimental category should help with that.

[@reardonraffe5728]

Unfortunately, Progressive Aerodyne (Searey) also closed their doors a little over a year ago after 30 years. Same story. Sold the company to a group based in Mainland China. Closed a couple of years later. They were still selling spare parts sporadically, then vacated the factory a couple of months ago. I hope someone ressurects it one day. Such a shame 😂

[@skyboys9814]

The airplane was built for an en excluiive smaller market, 7 figure people need only apply. And then only a percentage of those people would be interested. Icon, definitely not going to be the Henry Ford of Avaton .

[@tonyb4773]

Designed by car stylists, with little thought for production methods or costs. An inevitable result I’m afraid…

[@PRH123]

The car like styling of the panel and interior makes sense in trying to attract new non pilot customers. It gives a familiar but false sense of being modern and comfortable to people who know only cars. Cessna and others did that from the 40's and 50's. I suppose if the 152 and 172 could have their interior trim stripped out you'd save weight and improve performance (and increase noise), but people would be less inclined to buy them.

[@tonyb4773]

@@PRH123 Certainly the interior should be styled to please customers (alongside manufacturability), but letting them loose on the whole aeroplane was the mistake!

[@jbreezy101]

I have two words to say about the icon… Roy Halladay No, he was not fit to fly. I agree with that, but that aircraft is challenging, nevertheless.

[@caribbeanaviator1964]

It isn't challenging at all, but it is stall resistant, not stall proof. Is not a toy, is an aircraft! If you start messing around with it close or even beyond the operational envelope, it will bite you.

[@bluessandman2666]

Plane had nothing to do with Halladay's crash. He was stunting on a mix of drugs akin to a speedball and flew the plane straight up into a low altitude stall. He had a lot going on and made unfortunate decisions, but the plane wasn't at fault.

[@philipritson8821]

I'm not sure it was challenging to fly. The accidents in the aircraft came down to simple pilot error, poor judgement exercised by what we're on paper experienced pilots. Novice pilots tended to treat the aircraft with the respect an aircraft deserves and didn't crash it.

[@paradoxicalcat7173]

It has nasty stall characteristics, and questionable spin characteristics. I'm wary of aircraft that claim to be "stall resistant" - if you pull the nose up enough, you could find some REAL nasty handling hiding behind it. Recovery from spin may be impossible in such aircraft (if they are hard to get spinning, then they will be very hard or impossible to recover).

[@nickwinn]

Interesting, the folks from Icon were out at the Miami International Boat show trying to sell planes. The sales person told me it would take over a year to buy one and get it built, like they had a huge backlog of orders.

[@peterrestaino7047]

This is how some planes develope over the years. They go bankrupt and somebody buys it for pennies on the dollar and it continues. Eclipse is one of them .They spent a billion dollars on the program and someone came in and bought it for a few million.

[@coastalbbq1]

very cool plane. However as practical as a flying jet-ski

[@itsjavaman]

It was too expensive for what you get, so nobody wanted to buy it. There are just better options.

[@ccharlot]

Thanks for this update. I was enamored with this plane when I first heard about it and I knew about the crashes, but the details are interesting.

[@jmrico1979]

Great video about a sad story. Happens the same thing with cars. A lot of independent manufacturers driven almost solely by passion face a brick wall of regulations and certifications. The costs start to spiral out of control and they are never heard of again. As the decades go by, there are less and less manufacturers each year until one day there will be just one left.... holding the market hostage. Are we sure we are on the right track? honest question.

[@bladenrexroth2555]

Only 45 seconds into this video and want to state the obvious. I-Con's downfall was being greedy. They stated an initial price and within 2 years of release they quadrupled their prices. They pretty much priced themselves out of customers and the market. They could of been a big hit if it wasn't for their greed. They would of sold so many planes if they stuck around their initial price. I would of been a customer of theirs if they didn't ask for another $150k on top of their initial price. Which is why I'm now a proud owner of a 1947 Republic RC-3 with a Robinson conversion (LS3). I've got more range, more power, more useful load and more seats for 1/4 the price of an I-Con.

[@bladenrexroth2555]

A company like Polaris or Can Am that produces the side by side could bring us an ICON like product sub $200,000.

[@jtepsr]

It is too bad that this happened, it had a very unique design where you could take off or land on both land and water. I only fly remote control planes and eflite made an a5 which I flew but they don’t make them anymore. I wish someone would bring it back😢

[@ev3rlastingfaith]

Totally a guess but what might to be an ongoing decline in general aviation interest could also have been a factor. And yes, that would apply to all aircraft manufacturers, but Icon might not have had the buffer margin to manage the added shenanigan. Hopefully the engineering, design and lessons learned will not be lost.

[@CyberSystemOverload]

An A5 with 800SHP Pratt turboprop, 6 bladed prop, 4 seats, cargo space, Garmin glass would have been awesome.

[@NCPPGpilot]

We almost bought in when it was $140k. Something gave us pause, and glad it did. Nice bird, but at it's current price, a 172SP makes more sense.

[@pilotdane1]

Mojo - I love your channel. I am a pilot as well, AND I can tell you this, for "essentially" 1/2 a million bucks, I'll take a shiny new Cessna 172 SP - Thank you very much !!! - for an example..... I'm a "hundred dollar hamburger" kind of pilot - nothing fancy 🙂

[@kmg501]

I don't know anything about the plane but just looking at it it seems like it is complicated to build. That's a shot in the foot right there if I am correct.

[@MrJames_1]

Great video. Calm, no senstaionalism. Happy to be corrected but I think the initial price was $140,000 ten or so years back. A friend had just paid $180,000 for a new car and so I thought, well there's a good argument for the wife, it's cheaper and more fun than a new car :) I was impressed with the spin-resistant design they kept demo-ing in test flight vids. I hope they are saved (under fresh management).

[@LRobichauxIV]

Nice summary, Mike. Just curious, what’s the technical reason stated by the manufacturer that it needs to be sent back to factory at 2k hours for an airframe overhaul?

[@andyhughes1776]

Best indicator of a tanking economy is when companies that sell discretionary products file for bankruptcy. In other words, people don't have extra cash for doodads when they could barely pay for essentials!

[@wetoolow8750]

I dream of owning an Icon A5. Unfortunately, it may never happen. BTW, the three high profile accidents they had were all pilot error. The 2000 hour airframe service was something that I didn’t know about until watching this video.

[@WillAshcroft-g3i]

Pricing is what killed them. Fabulous piece of kit but not at $400K. They need to sell/manufacture 10 planes a month to break even.

[@conservativemike3768]

I plan to invest in traditional wood Sampans. Much more affordable, and the way the world is going the market is massive.

[@EJWash57]

Junk! The only way to sail...

[@wmgroome]

Prices are too high for everyone. Make aviation affordable again.

[@louisvanrijn3964]

Some remarks on the flying cars compared to light seaplanes in general. A sea-land aircraft can fly and land on a lake (not the sea due waves) and on airfields. Imagine that footprint on a map. A flying car can fly, land on an airfield and drive over all existing roads in the world. Compare that footprint on the same map. This is essentially different. The market is much bigger; as the transport envelope is much greater and very finely meshed. The technical challenges of building are much higher, however. Flying mass, folding mechanisms, and road and air legislation togheter in a limited size and appropriate price. The high price is compensated by the transport envelope, which is virtually unlimited. The A5 sells a holyday dream, a flying car sells real useable transport. Hence another class. So: Think out of the box.

[@baanibarnes9711]

What a shame! I only came across this fantastic looking aircraft recently (July 2024), and if looks could kill. If I was a pilot, this would be my go-to plane, looks like it came from a science fiction movie. And it's amphibious, pity it never got the following or development it needed for success, thanks for the background story.

[@danielpearson4972]

Working as an A&P for years and retired now. A insurance reliable is cost is great. Many times in GA the pilot is the issue.

[@anthonycyr9657]

When i can buy a real airplane for the same price as this flying toy, what would you choose,? i can buy a LA270 lake amphib for the same price,or a cessna 180 amphib, just another company whos priced itself out of the market.

[@fingerhorn4]

It was a great, attractive design. But it was too slow, way too expensive and the company was overbearing in its requirements of the customer. Its marketing was utterly disastrous, promoting the A5 as a casual lifestyle accessory for the super rich. You cannot sell thousands of units with that image. Quite the opposite. It should have been promoted as an amphibious craft for the common man then kept the price down through economies of scale. It also made the mistake of promoting the A5 as "easy". No aircraft is easy and requires thorough training.

[@disabler23]

I feel the camera focus is on the shirt?, if is a fixed lens I think moving the camera back would help? or is it just me? I just feel this videos are too high quality everywhere else so maybe is intentional?

[@jpdurr]

another Classic Example of Over Promising, and Under Delivering. The "Contract" they proposed was absolutely ridiculous. There are better options out there for less money. I predict that the Vickers Aircraft Wave will succeed where this one failed.

[@Cogzed]

*Cheaper place to build + price goes up = greed.*

[@darren.stevens]

So sad!! Let's hope for a buyer that can turn it around.

[@joshuashackelford6696]

Too expensive for a toy, crazy contract, horribly managed company from the start which led to low production quantity and ever increasing pricing.

[@atiqulny]

Really sad to see it go... :(

[@lando1071]

The A5 was a really cool flying jet ski for the rich.

[@grumpa5798]

Happens every time we start to enter into a deep recession. We are diving head first into one this year.

[@barrywilliams991]

Low production numbers prevented economies of scale. So the per unit cost has to go up.

[@michaelspunich7273]

430 pounds of useful load when they first came out! Most Americans wiegh close to 200. Do the math. You and your buddy could not both get in and go anywhere. My father and I discussed this way back when, and came to the conclusion that it was going to fail.

[@scottfranco1962]

Icon was cool, but a toy for the superrich. Turns out not that many superrich with a death wish.

[@InMyBrz]

ONLY for people with more money than brains, soon to go broke !

[@samadams7224]

Hey Mojo, have you looked into the Samson Switchblade? Looks like an A5 land version.

[@makingmypath.5176]

Not worth that price considering you can buy a lot of planes out there for under that does a lot more. The icon is a novelty.

[@airdad5383]

I think Robinson helicopters requires you to send the helicopter back to the factory for overhaul every 2000 hrs.

[@JohnCillis]

I can't say I feel sorry for the deposit holders, or the company. Light Sport should have offered aircraft priced for the niche the program was in. The Allegro 2000 I trained in at Falcon in Mesa AZ cost half of the Icon's price, though it still was not a huge success. Recreational flying is a nice dream, but it is also conspicuous consumption when prices ratchet closer and closer to a used biz jet, such as in the Icon's case. Startups that plan as they go along often dupe customers to send deposits to finance the initial design and testing, property and manufacturing equipment phase. That should be a red flag for any buyer--they are using the buyer as an investor. These buyers did not care--they were perfectly willing to pay 250K for something with limited range, speed, etc just so they could use it as an aerial-water RV. I learned as most of my friends who were recreational pilots, that renting is far better if you just want to do sightseeing--the Icon, had it been purchased by FBO's for that purpose, might have been a better idea, since it could also be used for flight instruction as a SLSA.