Why the Icon A5 is Failing

This is the Icon A5, designed and manufactured by Icon Aircraft, a US-based sports aircraft manufacturer. The aircraft is known for having brought significant excitement and publicity to the LSA industry since its unveiling in 2008, although the company’s legal and financial issues have slowed its production. ICON Aircraft positions the A5 with a recreational focus, stating that the aircraft competes with power sports vehicles such as ATVs, motorcycles, watercraft, and snowmobiles, rather than other airplanes. The A5 is the only light aircraft in production to be certified to FAA Part 23 standards.
Timecodes
00:00 Introduction
00:49 External/Design
03:40 Interior
05:00 Engine
05:44 Avionics
07:15 Performance
09:47 Market
10:04 Pros
11:11 Why it Failed
14:33 Conclusion
#IconA5 #IconAircraft
________________________________________________
To contact me directly: [e-mail]
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.

[@michaelshaw8370]

This aircraft had soo many positive and ground breaking features. It promised soo much. Unfortunately due to combination of over promises, over reaching management, marketing, and production issues. This ended as an aircraft too far. They promised a deal akin to pay $5,000 for a Tesla quality car you will get it within six weeks. The following week only to told you are locked in unfortunately the cost is now $50,000 with a ten percent annual increase. Also there is now a four year wait for delivery. The only way to withdraw from said contract. Is within thirty days pay a $20,000 termination fee. Only for the unfortunate ones that stuck it out and paid for the massive overspend. Only to end up with something worth far less than the initial fee. As the company then suddenly declared insolvency. Aviation and snake oil should never have any affiliation.

[@bugsy742]

Sooo basically CNUTS then 👍

[@MidShipCivic]

Still dont see why it fails because you say so ?

[@bugsy742]

@@MidShipCivic what do you mean mate?

[@MidShipCivic]

@@bugsy742 are you buying one this isn’t the experience I’ve had with ikon …

[@bugsy742]

@@MidShipCivic absolutely not, considered but not after all I have heard, it’s good to hear your experience was different though as that gives me hope 🙏

[@jjthomas2297]

Same reason all new aircraft fail...TOO EXPENSIVE. A fully equipped one goes for 389,000 dollars. For a 95 knot LSA? TF outta here. And almost 400 grand is not an "Entry Level" aircraft

[@DoogieFresh]

At 95k they could sell the snot out of it.

[@joshdickens8281]

Agreed

[@PINGPONGBANDIT]

So true, one can buy a well equipped cessna or piper of 60 to 80k

[@yusted1]

@@PINGPONGBANDIT ya but those are often decades old

[@atis5607]

My father just certified a 90K dollar SLSA in Brazil that cruises 105kts and stalls at 42kts. Equipped with a Rotax 912S, a Dynon Skyview SE, has manual flaps and trim, and flies incredibly smooth. We will now certify it with the FAA and then EASA. The aircraft is the Steel, manufactured by Rupert Aeronaves.

[@matiaswilson4768]

At $150k would definitely consider buying one. But at almost $400k I would by a sea ray, a clean used C182 and a new SUV.

[@DoctorMangler]

You'd be stupid too. That's how it goes, some schmuck with money doesn't know how to spend it and gets shafted until he's poor.

[@Trevor_Austin]

So what you mean is that you are too poor to afford one.

[@matiaswilson4768]

@@Trevor_Austin Exactly 🤣 it’s a rich man’s toy at that price point. Only someone that can spend $400k with out any need to justify the purchase could buy it. A nicely decked out Searay is $100k and is arguably a better plane. The Icon is a luxury brand that you buy just because you can not become its 4x better than the competition. However that is not what the company set out to become so I’m disappointed 🤷‍♂️. Do you own an Icon A5 or are you poor also😆

[@sprolyborn2554]

@@Trevor_Austin lmao BTFO

[@ravener96]

@@Trevor_Austin braindead take

[@tonyc.4392]

This is a case study in why you don't let the marketing department run a company.

[@FreedomForce100]

You nailed it.

[@gocanada9749]

the company .... into the ground, PURE GREED

[@rickybobby7276]

Icon's marketing team would make a fortune in the tech space.

[@YankeeinSC1]

Don't forget to point the finger of blame at the lawyers that wrote the purchase agreement

[@jasono2139]

It's like this in most industries.. The management/marketing department promises or demands all kinds of pie-in-the-sky specs and for it to cost next to nothing to design and develop... Hand it over to the engineering department who will complain, but reluctantly agree to ATTEMPT to hit all the performance specs PLUS all the unmentioned safety standards, manufacturability standards, documentation standards, certification standards that's taken for granted... Then management will complain when the project goes 3x over budget and years behind schedule. 🤦 These peabrain businesses think you can make a company more successful by filling it full of people who merely make demands and tell everyone else what to do.

[@durandun]

I currently work for Icon, we're still alive and kicking despite supply chain, material shortages, and countless other hurdles. We're headed in a new direction, it should be exciting to see the new developments we've been working on!

[@Matt-qv8zj]

Best of luck

[@danielkut]

Yeah, I don’t get the whole “failure” thing. It’s not a failure.

[@LegoSwordViedos]

@@danielkut sounds only like holding customers hostage and then not giving the sold items to people who bought them.

[@dmanduff9108]

Is Icon planning a twin engine or turbine version? Or maybe a 4 seater? Any of those updates with the same current A5 capabilities would be insane!

[@msmith508]

Buyers are legally obligated to support the company?!…imagine if it were illegal for me to tell you about my vw’s lackluster cruise control

[@rw0037]

At $400k, they need to understand they ARE competing with other aircraft/seaplanes/floatplanes, whether they admit it or not. It’s a neat idea but they massively over promised and under delivered. It’s sorta the worst of both worlds- too expensive to be an accessible, fun sport plane while also being underpowered and not as capable when compared to other aircraft.

[@MrGoMario]

And they could not deliver even at that ridiculous price!!!

[@nicholasjaeger3132]

Yea It is a great idea of a plane but.... if you have the money to buy this plan you have the money to buy something better. This plan always looked fun to me but i cannot drop a half mil on a toy. If they want that price to stick they need to in increase the range and speed to make it dual purpose of a fun but also utility based travel plane though that will not happen. Case in point you can get a seamax that is not quite as pretty as the a-5 but you can actually get it, and spend less than half the price for a brand new one or a lot less for a nice used one. Looks similar though not as fancy, but has a faster cruse farther range and i think burns a little less fuel. This was a cool idea but cost and issues just got in there way. If i was gonna spend that kinda money on a plan ill get a turbo prop that i can travel with my family.

[@TheBrennan90]

Lol you could buy an atv snowmobile and a boat and still have gas money for a year.

[@zeke2566]

@@nicholasjaeger3132 Don,t forget the chineze got involved in production and send the whole plan outa reach for quality, Chinese carbon fiber is a huge mess.........

[@cracknigga]

Typical California startup. Generate hype, throw a bunch of cocaine lunches, beg for money, get investors, promise them "innovation" and then slap together something that nobody wants or will ever buy. File for bankruptcy but keep the Lambo you bought off the initial investment. Easy peasy

[@tomw86]

I’m a video about why it failed, only a tiny part of the video was about why it failed. And the rest sounded like a sales pitch for the aircraft !!

[@chipcity3016]

I attended several of their lavish parties at Oshkosh. One time, I forget the name of the expensive bar, but they had the whole joint booked out and paid for with mixed drinks, food everything on the house, rave girls dancing in skimpy Eskimo outfits and an Igloo theme. The place was packed, we all got our fill. But I thought to myself how many other air-frame manufactures are putting on lavish parties like this? None, why? Because its a stupid waste of money, money that could have gone towards manufacturing those orders that we all knew even then would never be fulfilled. I'm sorry to say it but if you placed an order with the company you have done your dough. It was all just hype. Move on.

[@Yusuke_Denton]

First time I ever heard the phrase "skimpy Eskimo outfits". Bravo.

[@TheBuster0926]

​@@Yusuke_Denton hahaha first time?

[@chatGPT-One26]

If you take a look of Satrtup companys when they get the funding, exactly the same way!

[@travismcclure4195]

Im bummed about this plane, but after learning about this company, i'm not complaining that they are not doing well.

[@scottfranco1962]

When did they go under? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

[@CrzyMFT]

They sound more like a controlling tech company from Silicone Valley.

[@scottfranco1962]

@@CrzyMFT You mean Hollywood???

[@cenewman007]

I'm still on their contact list. I was all in at $140K, but at $400K, there are just too many other options. Especially when you consider plane shares.

[@mrwhips3623]

How did you get rich?

[@tonyvelasquez6776]

@@mrwhips3623 its called getting a career. Engineering. Not being a physical laborer.

[@OnceShy_TwiceBitten]

@@tonyvelasquez6776 Many people work in engineering, not enough to be buying 400k airplanes lmao.

[@tonyvelasquez6776]

@@OnceShy_TwiceBitten there's no reason to buy a 400k airplane when you can get a cessna with floats for half the price

[@ecyor0]

​@@tonyvelasquez6776 gotta love a classic "if you're a physical labourer you don't have a real job" response

[@kevinbarry71]

As usual; never sign a contract or give money to receive something that doesn't exist yet

[@davidwright873]

people get burned all the time doing that....from planes to homes...lol..you'd think we'd learnt by now...lol

[@jgetscensored7837]

It’s strictly a toy where as most small aircraft are recreational, yet maintain some utility. This thing is amazingly cool…. as a second aircraft. And that’s a very small market

[@MrAlanf33]

Anything that potentially can kill you if you don't know what you're doing (experience) and requires training to operate, etc. is not a toy. This is an aircraft full stop!

[@jgetscensored7837]

@@MrAlanf33 that was an attempt at intellectual superiority that fell flat on its face.

[@aflaz171]

@@jgetscensored7837 Really, I think what you just sent is!

[@aflaz171]

@@jgetscensored7837 Do you call a car a toy? Tosser?

[@aflaz171]

@@jgetscensored7837 ⚠️ warning, an attemp at intellectual superiority has just been detected on youtube by a wanker, warning!

[@DaveCarlson01]

there is a big problem with Icon promoting the airplane as a toy to play with close to the ground. Flying close to the ground is inherently dangerous, especially for an inexperienced pilot. That is how the two Icon test pilots got killed. They were flying close to the ground and mistakenly flew into a box canyon they couldn't climb out of.

[@Makelifehappennow]

Flying into a box canyon. That's aviation 101. Should have gotten better pilots, especially with a heavy, underpowered aircraft like the Icon.

[@zeke2566]

Icon A-5 is very under powered once loaded with fuel and 2 average to heavy folks- it's a Fucking Disaster waiting to happen!!.............

[@jj4791]

Agreed.

[@jeromyh8096]

@@zeke2566 That was my concern watching videos. With two adult males you could carry maybe 6-8 gallons of fuel. At 4 gallons of fuel an hour the range would be horrible.

[@rdarchitect]

@@Makelifehappennow I think underpowered is the correct issue, I saw on youtube icon stall at take-off

[@gene450000]

The 1940's Ercoupe was the first to be spin proof. At this price you can buy a lot of other aircraft. Very expensive.

[@skyhawk_4526]

You could buy about six or seven very nicely maintained Ercoupes for the price of one new Icon A5.

[@sgu222e]

Hey Gene, I thought the same thing when they mentioned the spin resistance, and I believe you are an Ercoupe owner like me.

[@cartmanrlsusall]

The ercoup is still available and a fraction of a new icon even after a major rebuild and recertification for a Rotax engine using car gas.

[@etops8086]

@@cartmanrlsusall Fun fact, the old stock 75 HP Continental had a certificate for unleaded 86 octane gasoline issued back in 1949 - not sure what it entailed to make that happen.

[@John-nc4bl]

It is too expensive and I dont like the way the horizontal stabilizer shakes in flight. This shaking will induce structural cracks into the empennage.

[@gocanada9749]

call it JUNK, the CHINESE will prob come out with an improved copy soon

[@lesizmor9079]

John, the video was poorly made. They should have mentioned that, as you can see if you pay attention, the horizontal stab was only shaking during the stall testing. Nearly every plane buffets when it begins stalling. And that shaking was quite mild, and goes away when stall is recovered. And because you are a careful & good pilot, you'll never let the airplane get into a stall. Right?

[@ronoconnor8971]

You saw that too huh? As a light sport I could find an inexperienced “pilot” drilling holes in the clouds which makes me nervous. In a stall condition “as long as the engine doesn’t overheat”? A stall condition is lack of air currant flow over the airfoil ( wing) the engine is in the wing and the cooling is dependent on air alone. Hold the throttle on your motorcycle when the chain fell off

[@ronoconnor8971]

@@gocanada9749made from cardboard and nail polish

[@ronoconnor8971]

@@lesizmor9079with all the minimums shown the chances of a stall are maximized here. Sport pilots are limited, but doubt they stay where they belong

[@waynebowersbirthdaynoteacc2873]

I attended Oshkosh the year it was announced. A friend at the house we rented came home with a purchase contract he was prepared to sign and accompany with a large deposit. I reviewed the contract, tore it up at the table and threatened to lock him in his room for the duration of the show. Worst document I ever saw. His sanity fortunately returned by the next morning

[@Mokarney]

Cool design and awesome functions but like everyone said, at $150,000 it's a great deal. Even at $250,000 it can compete but over $250k is a hard pill to swallow.

[@OfficialUSKRprogram]

That contract is just way over the top and ridiculous, but it's to be expected in today's world, no privacy, no rights, no ownership, "you will own nothing, and be happy" Cirrus has a similar story, unfortunately way too many people still buy them, whether because they don't know or they're not the ones flying them (like a flight school) Only Cessna has stayed true all this time.

[@pauloconstantino2827]

Unfortunately Cessna is not much better for those of us that actually want to own airplanes. A new single engine Cessna will cost you close to half a million. They only exist for flight schools and the occasional private owner who doesn't know how to be responsible with their money. They're just a biz jet company now. The people hyping up these criminally overpriced aircraft are city people who are used to not owning anything.

[@CarLoverPhotography]

That’s exactly why I will never support personal electric cars. I own what I paid for and I know how to maintain it for the rest of my life for extremely cheap. A Tesla would cost 100k in battery replacements just to go as far as my car has gone and you can’t fix it yourself because you don’t own it or the million dollar set of tools required. I wouldn’t spend 100k servicing my car in two lifetimes including gasoline! Don’t be a victim to the corporate scum that doesn’t let you own anything.

[@evinchester7820]

Yeah. I've seen a lot of companies come up with a list of what you the owner can do, what you cannot do, and that they company can do to you. When I see those, I walk. One thing I learned decades ago, was that there was a much bigger market for USED AIRCRAFT. It looked great and one would want one, but where they ended up, it didn't surprise me.

[@matthew1464]

This is like watching an ad for it, u make the plane sound so fun

[@darthkek1953]

Until he got to the contract I was all in. Then the contract & camera happened.

[@dputub]

Except for a possible slight edge in the sex appeal factor, the SeaRey is comparable or better in all mission and performance specs for a fraction of the price. And it’s available as a kit you can build yourself for a fraction of that price. It’s a safer design because the canopy won’t trap you if you flip it in shallow water as the A5 will. You can have a glass panel if you want. Not in an A5! What the heck were they thinking? Lots of people love the Icon. But just about any person who actually has a pilot‘s license and gives it more than a moment‘s glance would choose the SeaRey over the Icon. Put it this way: You can have an aircraft that performs exactly the same mission and is actually a little bit faster on the same engine and, oh, for the same money also have yourself a brand new Ferrari!

[@blaster-zy7xx]

I have flown the sea ray. It is definitely NOT a fast plane. It is low and slow and fun. I would own one, but I would try to stay away from salt water. Planes are too expensive as it is to maintain without adding the corrosion of salt water to the mix.

[@ABC-rh7zc]

You really can't compare the price of a kit plan with a fully assembled plane. The kit requires a workspace, expensive tools and 1,000 hours of time, inspection, etc. All of these add $100K to $150K to the real price.

[@blaster-zy7xx]

@@ABC-rh7zc The sea ray does come as a kit, but it also comes fully assembled, ready to fly. I have flown both.

[@tomplatner]

I own a Searey and agree with Dan on all points except I would replace “a bit faster” with “better takeoff and landing performance especially with the 115 hp Rotax 914 engine (available on Searey)”.

[@BangersMatt]

I looked at Icon. Bought a SeaRey LSX. It performs a bit better in most respects and is 1/5 the price or less.

[@mauryballstein8863]

I used to work across from their building. They would test on lake berryessa near by and I’m pretty sure the 2 pilots from the company that got killed weren’t doing anything dangerous besides flying into the wrong cove and not having the power to get up and out of the cove. The area where they crashed there’s a few spots that look the same which is why I think it happened. They thought they were able to get out and were flying low.

[@alanaldpal950]

The “cove” was a canyon that was to high to climb out of and to narrow to turn around and fly out the way they entered.

[@TheOwenMajor]

"They weren't doing anything dangerous besides doing this dangerous thing that got them killed"

[@dogjennings1171]

The accident was almost entirely the pilots fault

[@DaveCarlson01]

flying close to the ground is inherently dangerous. if you make a mistake there's not much room to recover. The Icon engineers/test pilots were flying low over the lake and they turned into a box canyon they could not escape from and they crashed. If they had been flying along in a boring flight path several thousand feet high this wouldn't have happened.

[@hb1338]

@@dogjennings1171 True but irrelevant. Most people don't look beyond the name of the aircraft and the fact that it crashed.

[@samcan9953]

Whoever thought designing the interior to look like that of a car sure doesn't like airplanes. What a bad idea (to put it politely).

[@RARenfield]

The 152 I trained in looked like it was designed by a VW Bug interior designer. Cheap and ugly.

[@One_Shot_Garage]

The Cessna Citation Mustang also has a bunch of automotive inspired interior components. I always thought it was a strange design choice. I don't think anyone who spends that kind of money on a plane wants it to look like a car.

[@dmanduff9108]

The concept behind the simple automobile style cockpit was to make it appeal to non-pilots who wanted to get their Sport Pilot's License...which is a relatively new category of FAA pilot certification intended for people who only want to fly recreationally, and thus keep it simple. A Sport Pilot's License is much simpler to obtain than a basic Private Pilot's license, with lower requirements. The concept is actually really cool. I just wonder if Icon actually pulled it off or if it's merely a gimmick.

[@iPig]

@@One_Shot_Garage Non-pilots looooove flashy "safe" looking interiors. I've shown plenty of prospective students around different planes and they all love the inside of a Cirrus. They're very unimpressed by the old 182RG, which a knowledgeable pilot would choose any day over the SR20. People with airplane money are typically stepping out of an Audi or BMW at the very least, and they can be taken aback by the cracked rattling utilitarian look of a working GA aircraft. Once they're on their way to becoming pilots they'll typically see the light and understand that appearances are not a priority in aviation. Icon is clearly going after non-pilots, so their efforts to make the plane "car like" make sense for their strategy, despite making the aircraft objectively worse.

[@eliasmora715]

its simplicity design.... thats the idea of this plane.

[@mikemaloney5830]

I too, own a SeaRey. 500 lbs less on same power. Individual hatches slide back (HUGE SAFETY FEATURE) and its a taildragger. Perfect for grass strips on the rough side. Not quite as sexy but still a beautiful aircraft.

[@wilfdarr]

"Not quite as sexy" That's an optimistic view of it... But it does the job at a fraction of the price, so there's that...

[@pauloconstantino2827]

I 1000% prefer the look of the Searey. I want a flying boat that knows it's a flying boat, not a flying boat trying its hardest to look like a Cirrus. My dad owned a Searey and I loved it. It taught me all the basics of flying. It was nice and docile without any gimmicks and without being a $400k airplane.

[@mikeryan6277]

As far as airplanes go it’s sexier

[@GulfCoastTim]

Well chief, I have both an Icon A5 and a SeaRey...in flight simulator 😁

[@silverlightaviation]

​@@GulfCoastTim LOL. Good one

[@smartysmarty1714]

The "contractual obligations" along with the camera are a deal breaker for me. I wouldn't take one for free if I had to agree to that garbage. These people are insane.

[@ABC-rh7zc]

I assume that a used A5 buyer would not be subject to any of those conditions or is that all built into the agreement too?

[@gocanada9749]

KEY WORD = GARBAGE

[@dmanduff9108]

That smells like China all over it. That's suspiciously similar to what the Chinese government requires of any company that wants to do business in China. Permission to thoroughly dismantle and "inspect" patented technology, and NDA's up the wazoo. I call that...suspicious.

[@wootle]

@@ABC-rh7zc theres no escape, the video mentions this - all future owners are bound by these disgusting rules.

[@peteranderson037]

The A5 was always going to fail because ICON management had a bad habit of over promising and under delivering. However, I'm sure it didn't help that the Chinese company that has been the majority shareholder of ICON over the past 5 years has been accused of bleeding the company dry of technology and not meeting its financing obligations.

[@davidwright873]

How would the Chinese be 'bleeding' the company dry of tech...I don't understand..

[@peteranderson037]

Because of their ownership of the company they gained access to proprietary information and technology. Apparently, some of this proprietary technology was popping up in mainland China and ICON wasn't receiving any royalties for it. This is a common complaint with most companies that do business with mainland China.

[@808bigisland]

@@davidwright873 They don't.

[@808bigisland]

@@peteranderson037 There is hardly patent infringement on a seaplane. This is old tech.

[@peteranderson037]

There was plenty of proprietary technology with the way they were going to mass produce an aircraft out of carbon fiber.

[@Chance21]

Saw this at air venture 08. Fell in love. I kept checking on it through the years I always wanted to own one but just like everything, it's too expensive for what it is. That's was before inflation too.

[@Jetfixerlady]

Saw the Icon A5 its first year at OSH EAA Airventure. 2008, maybe later. Was immediately NOT impressed by the over-the-top marketing. It was in the same area as the business jets and and top tier piston aircraft selling for millions of dollars, and had an oversized tent and extremely flashy custom booth. I think it beat out Cirrus for flashiness. All for an aircraft whose main competitors were posted nearly a mile away, near the ultralight runway, and where most companies just brought a 10' x 10' EZ UP tent or two. And it says something when the most successful kit aircraft company in the world, Van's Aircraft, brings a ridiculously humble tent/booth every year, when over 11,000 of their kits have been built and are flying now. I've been to a number of EAA Airventures, and I have seen many small aviation companies come and go, with millions of dollars spent. It looks like Icon is going the same way. I'm only sad to hear that people died and that customers have been scammed.

[@ejrupp9555]

Yeah I hear ya! Didn't they make it sound like unicorns shit breakfast cereal. Their fantasy pitch didn't line up with the thing we call reality.

[@zeke2566]

Correct-,the whole Icon A-5 as-is a PONZI SCEME -ALWAYS WAS

[@docmirror8009]

I went the same year, and talked with the Icon guy. They were all promo and glitz and no specifics. Then, in 2015 I saw the req sales agreement and had a great laugh. Deserved to die.

[@AVdE10000]

In my country we have a saying: "Good wine needs no wreath". If you have a good product, especially in an expensive niche market, it will sell. Without need for flashy marketing.

[@chatGPT-One26]

As a Cessna owner, I have been Oshkosh for so many years, I am only be in their booth once or two. The imprssion of them is very rude. Just a fully loaded Seamax almost everything is supress them!!

[@kayrxx7123]

I'm pretty sure that Horizon Hobby make more money by selling rc versions than Icon by selling the full size plane

[@scottfranco1962]

ASO says it all. There are a couple of lake amphibians for less than $140k, but the A5 has one for an unspecified amount. I saw a like at our field which had a new panel installed, beautiful and fun and everything the A5 tried to be.

[@ogaduby]

My favorite plane to fly in MSFS 2020, to explore cities and landscapes from low altitudes. You can land EVERYWHERE! But even if i had a gazillion monies, i would not pay 300k for it in RL... Especially not under those terms. GL to them! I'll stick to MSFS...

[@iPig]

A few years ago they opened a sales hangar next to my work. We all knew the performance would be dogshit based on the numbers years ago. In fact, by our calculations based on their published numbers, it would be essentially impossible to legally fly the plane with two average American men due to the tiny amount of fuel you'd be able to load to stay under the max gross takeoff weight. And that's accounting for the special exemption they got from the FAA to add some extra gross weight above the normal LSA limit. So one day, one of the demo pilots thought he could somehow make a departure that required a rather steep climb angle to clear nearby airspace. A 172 couldn't even make it on a good day, so what you'd normally do is a climbing 270 to have enough room to hit the proper altitude upon reaching the airspace boundary. Despite the controller politely pointing out that most pilots take the climbing right 270, the Icon guy said "Hah! Nah we got it." In the most self assured cocky tone. You would've guessed he was sitting in an Extra 300 with the way he said it. I immediately knew this was going to be good. Sure enough, he looks looks like he's struggling to even make 400fpm. He's well on his way to reaching the class B airspace over 1500 feet too low. The dude refused to accept defeat, and eventually the controller had to step in and force him to turn around and circle to gain altitude. Idk what the guy was thinking, but I'm sure the potential buyer onboard was less than impressed (hopefully.) Other than marketing dangerous and advanced flying in a shit plane to non-pilots, there are plenty of other questionable and maybe less-than-legal things I've heard from various people who worked at Icon, or worked with them from the FAA side. I think it's pretty obvious that they're preying on non-pilots who aren't educated enough in aviation to know better. I feel bad for the people who saw their ads and went straight to them with the deposit before talking to someone at a normal flight school first. We dissuaded several students from putting money down, but there was one guy who did. He got fed up with their training process, having to return multiple times to their facility because they were rushing the training so hard to push through as many buyers as possible. He gave up and we convinced him to buy an amphib Carbon Cub instead. Anyway, I've been waiting for this sleazy company with a shit product to go under for years now. I guess they're good enough at getting uninformed rich people to part with their cash to keep doing what they're doing.

[@MiniBuster2]

When a contract says you can't say what you want about a product, you better walk away!

[@bBersZ]

I about fell out of my seat after spitting my drink out all over my keyboard and monitor when you said how much the price had gone up. Still a good looking plane. I guess

[@stevemyers2092]

they are still trying to make 50% Net on it, that's why.

[@p39483]

The snowmobile looking instrument panel told me everything I needed to know from the get go. The not-an-airplane turned out to be not an airplane.

[@nunziobusiness1509]

Right? I would never buy one because of that alone. I want an airplane panel, not some "easy-to-read" dial cluster. It's not a jet ski FFS.

[@lifetimedreamvideos985]

That was exactly my impression upon seeing the instrument panel. What pilot would want that. I was appalled when I saw the panel.

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

No one thought the A5 was going to be a success at $500,000 each. What it did do is prove that the Light Sport Aircraft weight limit was not going to be enforced by the FAA, and was not a requirement, but simply a "desirement". The FAA should admit this to save face. In America, we don't attempt to save face.

[@lescleaver3113]

At that cost your better off with a new Cessna 182

[@michaelspunich7273]

I'm pretty sure that the FAA gives a weight exemption for floats and parachute. It therefore does fall into the LSA category.

[@billkraemer4710]

Our government loves to crush entrepreneurs. They don’t know any better.

[@ryanm.191]

A lot of this video was just repeated information, but in short this airframe promised a lot for too little. They originally said it’s to rival other Powersports but then purchase cost alone skyrocketed to become far more expensive than Cessnas and pipers.

[@ABC-rh7zc]

are you comparing new with new prices?

[@ryanm.191]

@@ABC-rh7zc yes

[@diveforknowledge]

At the current price you could pick up a Bonanza, upgrade to a turbonormalized engine, then install a full glass panel. With enough left over for a shiny new Instrument rating.

[@wesgreen5595]

@@diveforknowledge can it land On water

[@diveforknowledge]

@@wesgreen5595 I was comparing price to performance. If you want an ASES plane go for a lake LA-250 for 100k or a Cessna 172 with floats, probably ~150k. So much cheaper it's an unfair comparison.

[@court2379]

I was at Oshkosh the year they unveiled this and it really stole the show from any other sport category planes. Really disappointing that the cost tripled.

[@ticenits1926]

The truly sad part is that anyone actually thought this plane would possibly sell for under 200k. Just look at it. 400K is equally unrealistic, you'd have to be crazy to think you were spending anything less than 250 to get an aircraft like this.

[@court2379]

@@ticenits1926 It was a different time. They were significantly more expensive than other sport planes. Though the finish/quality was another level compared to most. But other planes were 60-100K as I recall (sport category).

[@chatGPT-One26]

@@court2379 You can spend less than 200k NOW for a Seamax with everything of A5 has and more NOW！

[@avflyguy]

#1. Don't know outside of the US, but there very few insurance companies that would insure it. #2 Sort of looks like a page out of Jim Bede's playbook for the BD-5 in the early 70's.

[@Yeager123123]

Too expensive. I’d love it, but the price is just too exorbitant

[@twistedyogert]

I always suspected that the large amount of crashes involving famous people is one of the issues. It is advertised as a toy but I feel that it is dangerous to do that.

[@chatGPT-One26]

If their advertised is true, then years our pilot training and safety classes are in vain!

[@Chrisdalm]

I am so disappointed. This was to be my final aircraft purchased. I have been flying since age 13 and now age 70. I have been a shared owner of a Bonanza, Cardinal RG, and two military aircraft, the AT-6 Trainer, and F4F Wildcat. The ICON, when released, offered a great aircraft that you can store in a garage at less than 150,000 dollars. How could you not be excited about this sport plane. It turned out that the promise was too good to be true. Several accidents from both experienced pilots and those un-licensed gave it a troubled reputation. Then the cost accelerated beyond what it is worth. It is now an overpriced experimental aircraft with a troubled history. If they had kept the price as initially offered, it would attract many buyers such as myself and so many could be part of the sport aircraft industry.

[@diveforknowledge]

I'm a huge fan of the Evektor Sportstar, if you are interested in LSAs. Currently fly a bonanza, but for local sightseeing and low altitude fun flying I'd go with the LSA any day.

[@jj4791]

FAA Light Sport rule changes (MOSAIC) will make all of the LSA aircraft obsolete, and they probably wont stand on their own merit. www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-proposes-rule-enhance-safety-and-performance-light-sport-aircraft

[@FredPilcher]

Wow! I'd love to have one of those! And that's the first time I've heard someone call it a "fusilij". A damn shame, but totally unsurprising, that it failed.

[@daniellisy7161]

My absolute favorite scouting plane in MS Flight Simulator :D Yes I use MS FS to scout routes, its a pitty in real life they screwed it so up :(

[@MrDogfish83]

MSFS excels for route scouting!

[@chrispitchforth621]

I love this in flight sim as well.

[@alternax9751]

I just use it for free flight to be honest, select a nice place and boom, fly for an hour.

[@MrPaige222]

The best part is that soon we can geta used one for 100 grand or less due to the collapse of the company and overvalue of a new one.

[@jimarcher5255]

The purchase agreement alone would have me running for the door.

[@djgagnon3136]

This concept was done over 35 years ago in a home kit version falling under experimental category, Search Dean Wilson and Avid amphibian, or later models were the Avid Catalina, made from Avid Aircract Co. His kids were definitely ahead of their time and came with many of the same features you find on the newest A5’s…. Foldable wings for easy transportation, retractable landing gear, land or seaCapabilities and so on.. it’s just now the new versions look so sleek more modern and have a few more comfort features that really help sell in this modern age.. But if you’re just interested in those specs you could probably find a kit still available somewhere restore it I update it a bit (engine/avionics) and it would have pretty close to all the capabilities at a fraction of the cost.. build quality of the kits were very impressive back in the day I fly one of the first versions the original Avid Flyer B model serial number 125 and love it.. been debating on building a Catalina for years lol

[@craigd1275]

The Avid Catalina looks similar to this icon plane. Like the old 1969 Camaro to the new Camaro cars, or the new and old Mustangs. Nothing unique with the icon. Just natural progression. .

[@terrallputnam7979]

My Ercoupe is also spin proof, stall proof, supposedly, burns MOGAS, and has rudder pedals. It's not glass cockpit so if power goes out you still have gauges to get you home, and I will be glad to sell my plane for $30k, and that's even negotiable.

[@ictpilot]

The airplane itself is not bad. Biggest thing that killed it was the price increase first and then the contract. For about $165,000 I can buy a brand new certified Autogyro Cavalon with a Rotax 915is and have the same performance numbers. I would still like to fly an A5 just to check it out.

[@wcresponder]

Company's that put gag rules on the legal owners of the item are pathetic.

[@a.jacobson2932]

Hope a kit builder picks this up. I can see this as an aluminum framed kit for homebuilders selling like hotcakes for ~$30k or so. I know I'd buy one....

[@brianadams1907]

Me too! I paid a similar amount in 1970 dollars for a hang glider. $30K is fair for a good flying product.

[@jimarcher5255]

@@brianadams1907 unfortunately you can’t buy the Rotax engine for 30k.

[@zackriden79]

They already make that with sea ray and others

[@davem5333]

The $400,000 is the highest price it will ever be. Plus there are serious restrictions on LSA aircraft. No higher than 2,000 ft AGL or max 10,000 ft MSL. I would buy a Lake or a Grumman Widgeon.

[@DemonKelthar]

That purchase agreement alone is a deal killer

[@tarmacpounder785]

I love its design and it looks like a lot of fun to fly. I’d definitely buy it, but only in RC form.

[@situbes.972]

They had long time ago.

[@RARenfield]

If only you could. I have two of the Parkzone Icon A5s and one UMX version. They fly well enough, but are long discontinued. The Parkzone version needed many tweaks out of the box. UMX Icon flys like it's on rails. Parkzone used early official Icon CAD files for their scale version. But the final design is quite different.

[@tarmacpounder785]

@@RARenfield I’ve been mulling a 3D-printed Icon A5 that I saw online. Not sure how well it’ll stand up to anything more than the aquatic equivalent of a greaser though.

[@RARenfield]

@@tarmacpounder785 I only fly off water. So when I saw the 3D Planeprint advert, I got into 3D printing and made two of them. Then I found out it is no good on water. So I crushed them and tossed them out. I need a water plane. Not a lawn plane. Here's the parts layout for my second printed Icon. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4a6Z32DbKeCq6M Bottom line: Rene Marchand the designer said he wouldn't even try it on water.

[@0ption]

Been looking at the SkySkimmer plans myself... very similar in design to the A5

[@ler3968]

Looks great, but I expect the unit sales would be fairly limited since it has a limited range of Gen Aircraft practical uses, & a high cost. I am amazed anyone could get investors for a start-up of such a project these days. A pretty expensive toy just to fly to the lake for some catfish fishing?

[@chatGPT-One26]

If you plan to travel with a SUV towing A5 BEHIND and you can stop anywhere to explore the country, it should be a candidate. But with the price which I can have a G63 and a Seamax both doing the same thing.

[@alexp4394]

I was ready to purchase at one point but with the significant increase I ended up going with a much more capable Cirrus SR22T. When you are paying $400K you need much more range and 2 seats with very little cargo just sucks all around. Build it with at least 500KM range and another 10Kts of speed at least for that price.

[@wickedcabinboy]

Why it is failing begins at 11:07 Before that, it's an 11 minute commercial. The commercial resumes at 14:32

[@paramax55]

You know why 35% of its customers are non-pilots? Because no pilot that has ever owned an airplane would own an Icon - even for free. It is an overpriced, underperforming jet ski that becomes a poorly performing airplane. And the sea plane market is a miniscule portion of the aviation market, which is small to begin with. And the new airplane market is even smaller. So... you have a non-practical airplane, obviously designed by non-pilots, with overpriced "features" that fall short of aviation needs, catering to the smallest segment of a small market, from a startup company. Why WOULDN'T it fail?

[@ABC-rh7zc]

You have a point about the seaplane aspect - it might look cool but very few people live close enough to uncrowded lakes to make this a popular feature. I live next to the sea but there is nowhere where I would be able to take off or land this thing legally.

[@2Phast4Rocket]

The plane was marketed to the retiree crowd without telling the potential customers they must get sea plane certified before they can fly the airplane. The insurance cost is probably very high on the sea plane as well.

[@007Mugs]

What Jeff said is spot-on. As a C208 float pilot, I wouldn't set foot in one of these tinker toys. A fool is easily separated from his cash when it comes to aviation and specifically floats.

[@tripleseven8361]

It’s basically a half million dollar aircraft!

[@vincentrusso4332]

I like how it has the sports car feel inside, however engine options should of been mandatory on such a unique platform

[@Spartan536]

$400,000 can get you a lot of plane on the market. Sure the ability to be amphibious is nice, especially for people in coastal areas but flying is about going places, sometimes those are distant, other times they are near. You can get a nice used 2-4 seater aircraft for $300K and still have $100K left over for a personal watercraft.

[@automan1223]

Been an experimental aircraft enthusiast since the early 1980's. This company had all the hallmarks of snake oil and typical "lose your money here" for an aircraft they were never going to deliver. Sad so many get sucked into this obvious scam.

[@fredmyers120]

Holy Shades of Jim Bede,, Batman !

[@brianadams1907]

You are totally correct , this was an obvious scam from Day 1.

[@gocanada9749]

I bet they got stripped clean by the pilot's families who DIED in this piece of JUNK

[@ceisarsrepair7958]

Why do these aircraft designers use tiny Chinese men to design the cabin around? Rather than enter and sit down, you slither in the very tight seat and crunch shoulders with your passenger the entire flight. Another 8-10 inches wide in the cabin would Barely effect performance, and would definitely attract a larger demographic of American size private pilot's..... They make it look like so much fun, but after a1 hour flight, your so cramped up, shoulder and knee pain, that the flight becomes miserable. The prototype had a wider cabin, then they cheapened up, cut corners everywhere.

[@lesizmor9079]

The cabin is 46" wide, which is 4 inches wider than a Cessna 152 or 172. My plane is 43" and I do not sit with "crunched shoulders" with my passengers. Do some homework before shooting your mouth off.

[@ceisarsrepair7958]

@@lesizmor9079 Kiss off Les! There's more to this world than the Undernourished Skinny folks like yourself! And you're measuring the widest part of the cabin, not the shoulder and seat level, not the same area that the Cessna is measured. You're correct the Cessna models are tight, but so is this one. Realize one thing, this company is trying to sell aircraft in the $six figures to Sheeple with an LSA license, which means they will have to convince their wife and friends. The average U.S. adult male is near 185-200 pounds. The aircraft will easily carry him and his wife in weight but not comfortable. Just go to the shows with LSA aircraft, look at the average size of the demographic they are trying to appeal to, so STFU Little Undernourished city kid, look around you, it's no wonder sales are flopping like a fish. Save your breath, don't bother replying. Have a nice day! 🤣

[@CmdrEsteban]

What’s “American size”? Two double-wide trailers with a 24-hour burger bar in the back? 😜

[@ceisarsrepair7958]

@@CmdrEsteban No, it's Scrawny little shits like you that walk on their tip toes with a fanny pack. 🤣😂

[@user-mc8fw2cc3u]

🎉I have owned a Seamax for 9 years and Searey for 5 years and have flown the Super Petrel and Icon. All offer super performance for less than half the cost of Icon.

[@lordkreigs1978]

What is the altitude ceiling not mentioned or did I just miss it? I didn’t see anything mentioned about flaps either. My nearest runway is at 6400 feet elevation.

[@flyswryan]

Icon’s display at Oshkosh ‘22 generated a LOT of interest and orders, so calling it a failure is a bit premature...

[@jaytrock3217]

They can't deliver on orders they already have, it is a pyramid scheme to keep the business going. The payload is the downfall of this.

[@xfreedombuckO5x]

I loved the look of the green at Oshkosh.

[@vicariousjohnson9823]

What’s “a LOT of interest and orders?” You need numbers to back that claim.

[@flyswryan]

Jerry Meyer, CEO of Icon Aircraft, reported a healthy state of their order book with the updated version of the A5. They’re booked well into 2023 and are anticipating enabling changes, such as MOSAIC, to boost sales. They’ve also introduced options like a redesigned trailer. Their display was smaller and more inviting than in previous years, averaging 120 visitors per hour, with about one sixth of them taking the time to discuss their interest in purchasing an A5.

[@vicariousjohnson9823]

@@flyswryan Interesting. Wonder how the claims of a 4-year wait for delivery factors in to being booked well into 2023. Thanks for sharing.

[@grafhilgenhurst9717]

The highly publicized death of baseball great Roy Halladay in a A5 didn't help, although no one would say the crash was a fault of the airplane.

[@kneel1]

well - if you studied that crash it was clearly his fault, he was drunk and flying erratic

[@LaszloBagi]

Shit happens when you are stoned and drunk......

[@davidwright873]

hardly

[@enneffgaming]

I have the exact same fear with Hill Helicopters. Hill seems to be a much better company overall, with a great product. Although the price tag doesn't seem feasible and I could see the same things happening to those whom have made deposits on the unfinished helicopter. Praying Hill pulls its off as I might be able to finally afford my CPL-H if they can revolutionize the industry.

[@IconicFlight]

Here is the latest info since you made this - ICON production is up (I think they are up to 220) and will be expanding with new international certification to Asia and European. Great plane for the mission it was built for. Like a Piper Cub-low, slow, and fun. No 200kts 1000nm cruiser. Yes cost is high compared to used market of 30yr old planes, but premium light sports are in the same price range. Kit modeled planes are cheaper, but you have to be honest, they are not as finished (and I am not saying there is anything wrong with them). That's fine because market selection at various price points is a good thing. Don’t forget, a new Cirrus is 1.3mil. The Vickers looks awesome and I have been waiting years to see one. Vickers is learning it is harder to go from design to production, just like ICON. Hopefully Vickers can take advantage of the ICON lessons learned. Looking forward to them in the market. And note, Vickers will have the same issue with insurance liability. All amphibious planes carry a premium due to land/water ops (as Paul from AVWEB says, "A percentage of amphibious pilots will become U-Boat Commanders"). Vickers and all the other amphibious light sports are not be immune to that in US Markets. Parachute is not optional in US Light Sport Market. Not sure about overseas. Of course, if you re-register as EXPERIMENTAL, you can do whatever you want (of course probably voiding warranty). All models had retractable gear (not sure where you got that). Early contract issues have been resolved and more reasonable. My guess is TBO of airframe will probably increase as data comes in on the older aircraft. Most aren't anywhere near 2000hrs, so they can't do analysis just yet. Just like with the 787, carbon based planes gather more useful data as airframes age to predict maintenance direction of fleet. ICON will be the same. As for useful load and performance. That has been improved since this video was made. With the new 4-blade prop, you gain 10lbs of useful load, and marked improved performance (though I didn't have an issue flying the 3 blade, but 4 is definitely better). With the newly release mod of additional VGs, you add ANOTHER 60lbs of useful load taking it to at least 490lbs for a max weight of 1570, but that may be higher due to airframe. My airframe weight will take 503lbs to get to max. Read more here www.planeandpilotmag.com/icon-bumps-useful-load-of-a5-lsa-seaplane/

[@richardpark3054]

Wow! General configuration (high wing with integral engine & pusher prop, low fuselage/hull curving up aft of cabin to support empenage, etc) is strikingly similar to my antique Seabee (N6007K, just web-search the tail number). Of course, the Seabee is much thirstier; mine (with Lycoming GSO 480) drinking an astonishing 48 gph at takeoff power (thankfully limited to 5 min!) and about 12-14 gph at cruise. On the other hand, the savings of buying my Seabee vs the A5 (at least $200k) can buy a lot of avgas!

[@wilfdarr]

"Strikingly similar to a Seabee"? You got your beer goggles on!

[@iPig]

I'd take the Seabee any day over the A5!

[@richardpark3054]

@@wilfdarr Seabee and A5 general configurations ARE strikingly similar. Don't know why you can't see that. Maybe you're just a contrarian; bet that provides you continuous difficulty and drama. But I've no sympathy for you, because you bring it to yourself.

[@richardpark3054]

@@iPig Thanks! I agree!

[@wilfdarr]

@@richardpark3054 Don't get me wrong, my wife is far more practical than a super model, I love her dearly, and I'd take her over a super model any day of the week. Just not "strikingly similar!"

[@notachannel4u]

Small, no dihedral and slim wings designed for the tow-ability of the plane made it very unstable to fly in certain conditions. The Nissan designer was wrong on this as safe is #1 priority in aviation. That’s where the A1 failed big

[@stevec7596]

I never saw an A1, but the A5 in the video does have dihedral.

[@andrewjackson9113]

You are completely wrong. It is incredibly stable. Watch the videos on stalls. I think everyone agrees that spin resistance and a parachute are focused on safety. And it is the A5, not the A1.

[@OneTequilaTwoTequila]

@@andrewjackson9113 You wouldn't need a parachute if you were a competent pilot.

[@andrewjackson9113]

@C K Dang it. The military is going to be really pissed to find out all its fighter and trainer pilots are incompetent by your standards. That's nearly 100 years of wasted money on parachutes, ejections seats and egress systems. If only they'd known that being competent would have gotten them through any unexpected situation. Pure genius on your part. Why add any safety systems at all to anything? Forget antilock brakes, shatter proof glass, warning horns, knee braces, football helmets, and condoms. Just be competent. Who knew?

[@Orofino6]

One cruised by the dock the other day. I'm hoping to own one someday.

[@nathandm1]

I would absolutely love to have one, this and an diamond DA62!!!!

[@HappyTactical1]

It’s a great offering, but it’s priced more than 200% of marketable value.

[@WalterPetrovic]

This is a beautiful-looking plane that I would buy if I had the money. Too bad it is going by the way of all incompetently run companies. What the hell is wrong with people?

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

You would pay $500,000 (half a million dollars) for a plane that is no faster than a car, can not be flown in inclement weather, and can not land on most bodies of water because it would be illegal?

[@WalterPetrovic]

@@DumbledoreMcCracken You clearly hate the product. That is ok. I am just sorry you read my comments skewed toward your feelings, and not toward the sentiment I offered. Please reread what I wrote then deconstruct it for its intent. You will notice "If I had the money" and "going by way of all incomeptently run companies", and you will see that the focus of my comment set squarely on "This is a beautiful-looking plane". Plus, I live in Canada and you need a permit or license for almost everything - pretty soon, for shoes, maybe? That is the price for real "freedom", I suppose?

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

@@WalterPetrovic I don't hate the product; I hate the lies told when the product was marketed.

[@WalterPetrovic]

@@DumbledoreMcCracken I am with you on that 100%. It appears the entire world is run on lies and greed, and then people wonder why our lives are so screwed up.

[@pctrashtalk2069]

@@DumbledoreMcCracken I see similar issues with all the VTOL craft that are coming out. You are not going to be able to fly from you home since neighbors will complain tot he government just like they do when someone wants to use a helicopter from their home. Small airports are few and getting fewer. Where at you job are you going to be able to land your VTOL? Regulated out before getting started.

[@ianwhittinghill]

I bought my airworthy ‘65 Mooney M20E for $40k in 2015. She reliably delivers my 50 hours a year of flying. I can’t imagine that a new Icon is ten times better. Okay… I will concede that the Icon IS ten times better at landing on water.

[@iPig]

Every plane is an amphib if you try hard enough!

[@Makelifehappennow]

@@iPig At least once.

[@Ibrahimarm]

Something that really irks me about the A5 is the instrument layout/interior design. I don't want to feel like I'm driving a car when I fly a plane. The instrument cluster especially doesn't allow easy dual flying which is just really dumb.

[@chasesahc]

Over 10 minutes in - still don’t know why it’s failing….

[@grumpasmirf]

It's an ad

[@chadpm11]

Was designed to fail on the market, over statements on capabilitys then the price going up 3 to 4 times what it was advertised for and many more high performance 4 seating aircraft for the same price

[@JohnSmith-nh3bc]

Awesome plane. Wish it came in more affordable kits or plans were available. For electric models. I would use Shamrock gearing.

[@iPig]

Build a SeaRey!

[@benthurber5363]

From what I understand, maintenance is also a pain. And good luck with all the proprietary gauges and switches when they go belly-up and you can't get replacements.

[@mikemortensen4973]

Another factor is the high cost. When I found out how much they wanted for one, I was no longer interested. Too much $$$$$ I was in contact with them about 10 years ago, found out the price tag and emailed the guy back and told him I was waiting to hit the power ball or mega millions lotteries. He never emailed me back of course.

[@court2379]

Originally they had it at $140K which was only slightly more than any other light sport category plane available. At least by my observations looking at all the planes at Oshkosh. And it was significantly better built. It was like comparing canvas and tube planes with very homebuild looking frames and cockpits to a luxury sports plane for nearly the same price. Too bad they couldn't deliver...

[@freddymax5256]

@@court2379 and they had real lookers pitching them at the Oshkosh displays.

[@court2379]

@@freddymax5256 I was 20ish at the time. Seems like that would have been something I would remember...😕

[@zeke2566]

Give this carbon fiber Albatross a very wide berth--5 people have died trying to fly out of Situations ,underpowed,over weighted,bad judgement etc,the sponsons block airflow to control surfaces on the wobbling tail section leading to sudden loss of control,also when the chineze got involved many corners were cut on production costs using sub-standard Chinese carbon fiber ,for half a million bucks,well run the other way.......

[@xippzap]

I saw that horizontal stabilizer on top of the vertical stabilizer shaking like a twerking drunk chick and it scared me silly, Can you imagine the fatigue cracks that are going to develop and then fail. Sending the occupants into mother earth at a fatal speed and attitude. NO THANK YOU.

[@KenjiFox]

@@xippzap to be fair that was during a 100% stall, which you shouldn't be intentionally doing all day. Not only that, but those exact conditions could cause a fatal crash instantly in most other aircraft. I'd take a wobbly tail and eventual stress damage I would catch early over a fatal spin any day. The tail doesn't wobble at all in normal flight conditions. The plane also has a rocket launched parachute should the thing have a mechanical failure.

[@zeke2566]

@@KenjiFox very bad argument ..........

[@davidj.3441]

Killed it with that purchasers agreement.

[@reddust6103]

What weapons can be fitted?

[@brentsutherland6385]

It's got the same issue as all LSAs, people don't want to invest in a plane that isn't practical for business or personal cross-country travel.

[@michaelspunich7273]

And out of all the LSAs, this payload capability with two people is one of the worst.

[@charlesharper7292]

Too bad. Nice little airplane.

[@Jonfocus03]

Ah this is sad. I remember when I first saw this plane. I wanted it SO bad. Being as young as I was, there was no chance. Now that I'm older and able to afford one of these(at non-inflated price) there would no chance in hell I'd get one. I still love the plane tho.

[@snorttroll4379]

what improvements could be done to this plane? would vtol be of value? what other improvements?

[@M1911jln]

Too expensive. A stupid design for the dashboard. Initial marketing that, to be polite, didn't emphasize safe operation. Limited range and payload. It's an expensive toy, rather than something to be used for travel.

[@michaelspunich7273]

You are correct. The payload with two on board is pathetic. Go up, circle around the lake for an hour and then have to refuel... who wants that?

[@DC3Refom]

95kts that's quite slow

[@ceisarsrepair7958]

I think the LSA requirements are that it can't exceed a certain weight, and can't exceed a certain speed. With a constant speed prop and correct tuning that should easily cruise at 120-130 as sleek as it is. But they wouldn't dare advertise that or it would be Disqualified from the category.

[@garyfischer4357]

95 kts for an amphib is not bad. Especially if it burns less that 5 gallons an hour. Pretty damn good, actually.

[@blaster-zy7xx]

I fly LSAs and you can get planes to do about 115 with that engine, but not with all the stuff needed to also make it a boat too. I also flew a sky arrow that looks like it would go a lot faster, but it didn't.

[@anselmodominguez4376]

I love working on this aircraft was working for them for 5 years

[@Jay-lf9fd]

Saya pecinta pesawat ini sejak pertama kali muncu. Sebagai pehobi aviasi tentu saja punya keinginan untuk membeli, sayangnya dana pribadi tidak cukup, namun berusaha menabung untuk membelinya. Kombinasi budget dan peraturan penerbangan di Indonesia yang rumit, membuat hanya jadi impian. Pesawat yang cantik dan menarik namun terlalu banyak kontroversi buruk. Sayang sekali

[@xevious2501]

The aircaft itself was indeed awesome. and lived up to the hype just as long as operated in a proper manner. And that was the key problem.. it was so easy to fly, that its operators often committed to acts of sheer stupidity, including its own company representatives giving demos. Ive seen many videos of these pilots flying ridiculously low to the water and dont high angle banks, just barely touching the wing tips into the water, which ultimately result in a crash, and i wouldn't doubt such thing had occurred to one of the two staff pilots who died. Saw one pilot try taking off from a lake in the least amount of distance and clearance imaginable, crashing into the trees along the lakes shores. And of course the unfortunate video of Roy Halladay of which i will not comment. Pilot error. So in terms of accidents i think all of them was simply due to their pilots doing absurdly stupid things, while of the business side of the company i guess the same would remain true. people making promises but not coming to the conclusion of the actual difficulties of mass manufacturing with strict constraints to regulations. Its a shame to hear the companies woes, but it seems with all good ideas often come from those who can make leaps, but seldom ever truly think things thru, failing by the wayside when all is said and done.

[@SithLord2066]

The aircraft was awesome from a marketing perspective. As for actual performance, it was overweight, had less useful load than its competitors and less range than its competitors and cost almost twice as much. So not very awesome in performance. But it looks cool.

[@xevious2501]

@@SithLord2066 which competitors you got in mind? i was under the assumption the A5 was really the first of its kind being amphibious.

[@OneTequilaTwoTequila]

It's only awesome to someone that doesn't know anything about seaplanes.

[@xevious2501]

@@OneTequilaTwoTequila as if there's many of.

[@seaplaneguy1]

The A5 needed twice the power with the same engine weight and a twin tail on booms laterally to work without spin issues. I wind tunnel tested an airplane similar in size (3 place tandem) and it had 1/3rd the drag. A5 was 9.6 sq ft and Sea-Era high wing was 3.2... The hull also was not designed right and the sponsons did not add lift. Sea-Era got 1/2 the lift from the body. I wrote them how to fix it and they said they did not take unsolicited engineering advice. What a waste of $120+ million. LOL. Anybody want to design a real seaplane? I am the guy...the seaplaneguy.

[@Corn-Pop.]

if you spend $120 million to design a good version of this thing I'll drop $350k on one, it honestly looks like a great little plane but between the weird practices of Icon and that 2 of the people who made it managed to kill themselves flying it I'd rather take a pass, that and the retractable landing gear on the hull of something that is going to be hitting the water at 100+ mph has a 100% chance of filling with water and creating massive drag, but really with the price of this thing I'd be expecting one hell of a craft and with zero bullshit of a agreement to speak well of the company

[@seaplaneguy1]

@@Corn-Pop. The design does not work, as I explained. No amount of money will change that. They wasted $120 mil on something I could show you in 5 minutes would not work well.

[@jeromelyles3884]

Excellent review.

[@orlandosanchez3605]

The Superpetrel provides access to water too and it does not come wit the aggressive limitations imposed in the A5 contract.

[@tristandawson6417]

Of course the A5 is failing! It's a $400k LSA! For that kind of money, there are significantly better options. You'd have to be an idiot to even consider the A5...

[@KlingonCaptain]

The Icon tried to be the modern version of the Ercoupe, but failed by becoming the modern version of the Ercoupe...

[@amariner5]

🤣🤣🤣

[@wckoek]

I've heard it is possible to buy a Beriev Be-103 at around 500k in Russia domestic market. 2 seater at this price is a bit expensive. Also amphis are limited to a specific area/demographic of flyers. Its not like the roaring 20's where everyone making it have a waterfront house.

[@karrpilot7092]

A Cessna 182 might look quite ugly compared to this aircraft, however, a 182 can fly with just about anything one can put into it. This airplane couldn't make a flight 1/2 the distance a 182 could do.

[@mcrvids6860]

I think that's the idea though. The A5 isn't designed to haul long distances, it's designed to be a fun little weekend/afternoon aircraft. It's a gap that exists in General Aviation that I was hoping this aircraft could fill, but the company sadly hasn't lived up to expectations.

[@karrpilot7092]

@@mcrvids6860 It might have been advertised as a fun little aircraft, but at the price point and lack of a useful load, it's like a Mazda Miata. Can't go far, won't do it comfortably, and forget about carrying anything.

[@Ben-mw9vz]

@@karrpilot7092 To be fair to the Miata, its way cheaper to obtain,maintain, and also safer than the A5

[@karrpilot7092]

@@Ben-mw9vz I agree. However, so are mopeds. But I don't want one of those either. )

[@Benjamin-tr4jr]

@@karrpilot7092 Miatas are great though, they don't really fit the comparison