What do you folks think about the Icon A5

Henning said:
No, people who are disconnected will ignore it just fine. It'll be like watching a movie with a self destruct timer counting down. They'll just "eat popcorn" all the way in. The AoA is a great tool, but it will have little to no affect on the stall spin accident scene with or without voice.
Click to expand...

I agree. You can bet most pilots that have gotten into the stall/spin accident scenario were so incapacitated that they ignored all visual or audio clues. Same reason why pilots ignore instruments in a spatial disorientation accident. Severe panic and the brain locks up.

I like the AOA display on the Icon, it'll help fly a more precise profile but this is no fighter aircraft where you're configuration is changing drastically based on external load. It's a little two seater where the change in weight will have a minimal change in stall speed. I'd bet that the white line they're flying on the AOA on landing, would be within a few knots of a corresponding landing speed. A few knots isn't going to be the difference between a good landing and bad landing. Also, I'd imagine that the majority of that yellow arc would produce an alarm or light on a traditional stall horn set up. A set up that produces sufficient warning to stall.

They keep harping on the fact the ASI isn't a good indicator of a stall. No kidding. If there are pilots out there who haven't been taught about AOA, the relationship of bank angle vs stall speed and accelerated stalls they've been cheated on their training.

It's a nice supplement to a basic VFR display but by no means a game changer. Know your aircraft and be aware of the indicators to impending stall and the flight modes that get you into a stall is more important.
 
For the Icon specifically I think the AOA indicator will be a useful tool for glassy water landings which can be tricky without a VSI, an instrument I don't think the Icon has.
 
Velocity173 said:
I agree. You can bet most pilots that have gotten into the stall/spin accident scenario were so incapacitated that they ignored all visual or audio clues. Same reason why pilots ignore instruments in a spatial disorientation accident. Severe panic and the brain locks up.

I like the AOA display on the Icon, it'll help fly a more precise profile but this is no fighter aircraft where you're configuration is changing drastically based on external load. It's a little two seater where the change in weight will have a minimal change in stall speed. I'd bet that the white line they're flying on the AOA on landing, would be within a few knots of a corresponding landing speed. A few knots isn't going to be the difference between a good landing and bad landing. Also, I'd imagine that the majority of that yellow arc would produce an alarm or light on a traditional stall horn set up. A set up that produces sufficient warning to stall.

They keep harping on the fact the ASI isn't a good indicator of a stall. No kidding. If there are pilots out there who haven't been taught about AOA, the relationship of bank angle vs stall speed and accelerated stalls they've been cheated on their training.

It's a nice supplement to a basic VFR display but by no means a game changer. Know your aircraft and be aware of the indicators to impending stall and the flight modes that get you into a stall is more important.
Click to expand...


The "Yellow Light" feature is exactly that of which is of greatest use. It lets you know how far away from the stall buzzer you are. Most people are not flying their approach in the yellow, they would be solidly in the green if they had an AoA. They need to learn to operate comfortably within the yellow; that's the key to good landings as well.
 
Henning said:
The "Yellow Light" feature is exactly that of which is of greatest use. It lets you know how far away from the stall buzzer you are. Most people are not flying their approach in the yellow, they would be solidly in the green if they had an AoA. They need to learn to operate comfortably within the yellow; that's the key to good landings as well.
Click to expand...

A stall buzzer is designed for a specific AOA which in level flight is about 5-10 kts prior to actual stall. I don't look at the red line as stall buzzer territory but actual stall. If this aircraft was equipped with a separate stall horn, it better be going off in the yellow arc of the AOA. Which leaves me to believe, as a stall warning device, it's not much better than a horn or light.
 
Velocity173 said:
A stall buzzer is designed for a specific AOA which in level flight is about 5-10 kts prior to actual stall. I don't look at the red line as stall buzzer territory but actual stall. If this aircraft was equipped with a separate stall horn, it better be going off in the yellow arc of the AOA. Which leaves me to believe, as a stall warning device, it's not much better than a horn or light.
Click to expand...

Right, the stall buzzer is between 5 and 10 kts above stall (more on most Diamonds). Now let's consider with a Vso of 42kts a normal final will have the the stall warning chirping or solid around 1.2 Vso. This is typical for me to have the stall warning chirping or blaring coming over the fence. It doesn't bother me, but it freaks out some instructors the first time. How many people you fly with that you hear the stall horn before the flare? Then it takes forever to touch down.
 
Henning said:
Right, the stall buzzer is between 5 and 10 kts above stall (more on most Diamonds). Now let's consider with a Vso of 42kts a normal final will have the the stall warning chirping or solid around 1.2 Vso. This is typical for me to have the stall warning chirping or blaring coming over the fence. It doesn't bother me, but it freaks out some instructors the first time. How many people you fly with that you hear the stall horn before the flare? Then it takes forever to touch down.
Click to expand...

The yellow arc is definitely far less annoying than a light but the light or buzzer should only be going off in the flare. That is, unless you're trying to do a short field landing and operating in the yellow arc or buzzer area is critical to a successful landing.

I just think these AOAs are important for some aircraft such as fighters and not so important in a small two seat amphib. In a fighter, fuel savings could be dramatic when flying a max range AOA profile. In a small GA aircraft, not so much. What I'd really like to see is a comparison between a book recommended approach speed and this AOA indication. Fly that book speed at all weights and compare how much it differs from the optimum AOA indication. I think it'll be well within the green arc and probably not far from the optimum indication. At least not far enough to matter.
 
Every landing I make is a short field landing in all regards except braking. I always land with minimum energy and the plane not flying. I pretty much always tag at threshold unless I have to go to the far end of a long runway, then I land long, but still the same.
 
Velocity173 said:
...I just think these AOAs are important for some aircraft such as fighters and not so important in a small two seat amphib...
Click to expand...

True. you might come out of a high speed stall from a high-G unusual attitude maneuver in a swept wing fighter like a Chinese throwing star, not your typical Cessna or Mooney behavior. When it comes to typical GA aircraft I think the AOA indicator is being touted as a life saver with no actual data to back that assertion up. It's already been pointed out that the stall/spin mishap is usually associated with a complete disconnect from what is happening with the airplane. Another gauge isn't going to solve that. If anything it's just another device that a confused pilot will look at and wonder "why's it doing that?".
 
Silvaire said:
True. you might come out of a high speed stall from a high-G unusual attitude maneuver in a swept wing fighter like a Chinese throwing star, not your typical Cessna or Mooney behavior. When it comes to typical GA aircraft I think the AOA indicator is being touted as a life saver with no actual data to back that assertion up. It's already been pointed out that the stall/spin mishap is usually associated with a complete disconnect from what is happening with the airplane. Another gauge isn't going to solve that. If anything it's just another device that a confused pilot will look at and wonder "why's it doing that?".
Click to expand...

The Vref thing as well. They demonstrate a complete approach just by using the AOA alone as if to prove its that much more accurate than an ASI. Well if that optimum AOA is based on a Vref of 1.3 X VSO at gross weight, the difference is negligible. Rule of thumb is to reduce Vref by .8 kts for each 100 lbs below max. In this case, single pilot, you'd be looking at a whopping 2 kt (at most)reduction in approach speed to get that optimum AOA or Vref. If you never did the mental math and didn't do the reduction for single pilot, 2 kts won't matter.

I like the aircraft but it's just a rich boy toy. Not something that hauls much, goes particularly fast or very far. Like a jet ski.
 
What makes it nice in a small amphib is that you do a lot of "non standard" approaches without the typical visual cues that surround a runway, so operationally, having an AoA can help give you an anchor to gauge the approach on.
 
Another thing ! Let's put the aircraft delivery and training center in NORTHERN CALIFORNIA about three hours drive AWAY from any major airport - another Icon genius move !!!
 
Let's hire Scaled Composites design team to build this - theyre good but they've NEVER built an amphib or an LSA !!!!!! You think maybe Harry Shannon or Paul Fournee down in Florida MIGHT have made them something better for about 20 million cheaper ????? Cost overruns like a friggin defense contractor !!!! Mark my F-ing words - stand by for the "Cirrus" effect on this one !!! You heard it here first !!!
 
Gotta be a pent up demand for these things though. Over 1,000 on order and they plan on producing 500 each year. That's an ambitious goal right there. I guess GA and the economy isn't too bad off if they're that many people laying down 247K a pop for one of these.:dunno:

To me this aircraft reminds me of the Liberty XL2 when it was announced. I remember thinking, well 85K for well equipped VFR aircraft that goes 132 KTAS isn't bad. That price climbed to over twice that and I never got much over 120 kts cruise in the one I flew. Even still, I'd take a Liberty XL2 full up IFR with higher cruise, more range and less cost over an Icon.
 
Velocity173 said:
Gotta be a pent up demand for these things though. Over 1,000 on order and they plan on producing 500 each year. That's an ambitious goal right there. I guess GA and the economy isn't too bad off if they're that many people laying down 247K a pop for one of these.:dunno:

To me this aircraft reminds me of the Liberty XL2 when it was announced. I remember thinking, well 85K for well equipped VFR aircraft that goes 132 KTAS isn't bad. That price climbed to over twice that and I never got much over 120 kts cruise in the one I flew. Even still, I'd take a Liberty XL2 full up IFR with higher cruise, more range and less cost over an Icon.
Click to expand...

The Skycatcher had over 1000 orders also, but most of those disappeared after a relatively small price hike compared to the ICON.

Granted, not the same market, but I don't see many people plunking down over 200K for an LSA. Many LSA manufactures can stay in business selling less than 50 aircraft per year in the U.S., but I don't think ICON is in the same situation.

The Terrifuga price tag has also skyrocketed. You can't spend as much money in developing an aircraft as these people have and stay in business unless you are going to sell thousands of aircraft. Don't see it happening.
 
Henning said:
What makes it nice in a small amphib is that you do a lot of "non standard" approaches without the typical visual cues that surround a runway, ...
Click to expand...

That's why I said it's useful for glassy water landings. With no visual cues and no VSI it can be tricky because you can't flare, you have to maintain descent and basically fly it onto the water.

No doubt about it the Icon is pretty slick, they put a lot of effort and investment into its development. I think it will succeed, maybe not 500/yr but enough for them to be in the black.
 
Whether the useful load comes in at 430 or 550 will be significant to their success.
 
With the slow speed, (100kts) do you think the flight schools could buy a few and train LSA students? Take them up to stall speeds and show them how it feels when the plane is close to stall, how sluggish the controls are and to feel how the wings shake? I learned that piloting is not only a science but an art as well!
 
Velocity173 said:
Gotta be a pent up demand for these things though. Over 1,000 on order and they plan on producing 500 each year. That's an ambitious goal right there. I guess GA and the economy isn't too bad off if they're that many people laying down 247K a pop for one of these.:dunno:

To me this aircraft reminds me of the Liberty XL2 when it was announced. I remember thinking, well 85K for well equipped VFR aircraft that goes 132 KTAS isn't bad. That price climbed to over twice that and I never got much over 120 kts cruise in the one I flew. Even still, I'd take a Liberty XL2 full up IFR with higher cruise, more range and less cost over an Icon.
Click to expand...

That's you I guess. The Liberty XL2 has been around for ages and I doubt they've even made a 1,000 of them yet. The A5 has orders in for more than that. Clearly there is demand for a plane you don't think much of. The difference is Icon is marketing to non pilots, not established pilots. The Icon appeals because it looks really fun. The XL2 looks like a trainer.

I agree the price will climb. It always does. What happens to sales when the price goes higher and the 1,000 orders are filled is a big question. There is also the question of when the economy takes a nose dive again, will they survive? I don't think Icon is immune from the traditional boom and bust cycle in aviation.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Another thing ! Let's put the aircraft delivery and training center in NORTHERN CALIFORNIA about three hours drive AWAY from any major airport - another Icon genius move !!!
Click to expand...

First of all, Vacaville is way less than 3 hours from Oakland, San Francisco and Sacramento. More like an hour and half to maybe two hours. Secondly, who the hell cares? When you're spending that much money on a new airplane, travelling to Peadunk Wherever and staying there for training is nothing at all to the buyer and actually part of the adventure. In case it's lost on you, Icon is marketing this plane to be an "outside controlled airspace" kind of plane.

If they insist on staying in California, I think they made a very good choice. I personally might have relocated to Florida for expense reasons.
 
vintage cessna said:
The Skycatcher had over 1000 orders also, but most of those disappeared after a relatively small price hike compared to the ICON.

Granted, not the same market, but I don't see many people plunking down over 200K for an LSA. Many LSA manufactures can stay in business selling less than 50 aircraft per year in the U.S., but I don't think ICON is in the same situation.

The Terrifuga price tag has also skyrocketed. You can't spend as much money in developing an aircraft as these people have and stay in business unless you are going to sell thousands of aircraft. Don't see it happening.
Click to expand...

Skycatcher was a turd before it rolled off the line.

Also hard to compared a half arsed new age 152 to a amphib, two very different demographics.
 
I just don't see the point in a $200K+ 2-seat Lake :dunno:. I'd save $125K and grab a Buc' and go flying with 2-more friends/baggage. It's just an expensive aircraft that will end up doing little for GA.

Don't get me wrong, I like the design and the angle they are attacking for demographics, it's just out of the realm of financially justifiable. If it were $100K, they might be on to something. $70K and they'd have a winner and you might see tons of them around area lakes. The part I haven't heard much about is how hot that thing is going to be when in a glass-capsule only flying 1-2K' AGL in the summer.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I just don't see the point in a $200K+ 2-seat Lake :dunno:. I'd save $125K and grab a Buc' and go flying with 2-more friends/baggage. It's just an expensive aircraft that will end up doing little for GA.

Don't get me wrong, I like the design and the angle they are attacking for demographics, it's just out of the realm of financially justifiable. If it were $100K, they might be on to something. $70K and they'd have a winner and you might see tons of them around area lakes. The part I haven't heard much about is how hot that thing is going to be when in a glass-capsule only flying 1-2K' AGL in the summer.
Click to expand...

Because you can fold the wings and stick it in a trailer behind the RV, or on the deck of your yacht, or in your driveway or dock. The folding wings is what makes the difference. Yes, I'd rather have a folding wing Bucaneer, but Lake didn't make them that way.
 
When they started out the price was $100k. I'm actually surprised it's only doubled since the first blush. If you were one of the first investors back in the beginning you are getting your plane(someday) for well under $190k, but I don't know anyone with the details.
 
You all can have it. I'll be waving at you when I go by in my Raptor on floats as I make my way up to pressurized comfort at FL250. 130K for the aircraft and another 20K for floats. The 100K I saved over the Icon goes a long way for Jet-A. :yes:
 
SoonerAviator said:
I just don't see the point in a $200K+ 2-seat Lake :dunno:. I'd save $125K and grab a Buc' and go flying with 2-more friends/baggage. It's just an expensive aircraft that will end up doing little for GA.

Don't get me wrong, I like the design and the angle they are attacking for demographics, it's just out of the realm of financially justifiable. If it were $100K, they might be on to something. $70K and they'd have a winner and you might see tons of them around area lakes. The part I haven't heard much about is how hot that thing is going to be when in a glass-capsule only flying 1-2K' AGL in the summer.
Click to expand...


Beats $364,000 for a new 172, and well all know how those are "4 seaters"

image.jpg



Per your example, I could also take that 200k and get a 185 Amphib and kick your bucs butt, of course were talking used vs new aircraft. The A5 will be a sweet little plane once the 10yr old used ones hit the market, but for the more money then brains types who buy new aircraft, you could do much worse for 200k.
 
Last edited:
If we're going to make direct comparisons let's not forget the A5 is LSA.
 
Henning said:
Because you can fold the wings and stick it in a trailer behind the RV, or on the deck of your yacht, or in your driveway or dock. The folding wings is what makes the difference. Yes, I'd rather have a folding wing Bucaneer, but Lake didn't make them that way.
Click to expand...

I wonder about the true utility of the folding wings though. Sure, if your are trailering it, it's pretty much a must-have. However, if I'm considering an amphibian for $200K, I'd grab a Buc and build a hell of a nice dock to fit the non-folding wings for $30-40K (with a boat lift, too) and still come out smelling like a rose. I just don't understand the thought process behind spending a ton of money for little utility, I guess.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I wonder about the true utility of the folding wings though. Sure, if your are trailering it, it's pretty much a must-have. However, if I'm considering an amphibian for $200K, I'd grab a Buc and build a hell of a nice dock to fit the non-folding wings for $30-40K (with a boat lift, too) and still come out smelling like a rose. I just don't understand the thought process behind spending a ton of money for little utility, I guess.
Click to expand...

The folding wing is everything to me as it allows me to get it to anywhere on the planet maxing at around $2500 with today's shipping rates. The folding wing allows you to have container or rolling trailer for your hangar that you can park anywhere. Amphib with folding wings means I can launch at any boat ramp and go fly.

The folding wing makes it an accessory to a vacation, not the focus of it. The folding wing means you can pack it up and ship it home or to a shop if it breaks along the way.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I wonder about the true utility of the folding wings though. Sure, if your are trailering it, it's pretty much a must-have. However, if I'm considering an amphibian for $200K, I'd grab a Buc and build a hell of a nice dock to fit the non-folding wings for $30-40K (with a boat lift, too) and still come out smelling like a rose. I just don't understand the thought process behind spending a ton of money for little utility, I guess.
Click to expand...


Docks are great for loading, not ideal for birthing a aircraft.

Plenty of utility, more than a Bo, or cirrus. People have the obsession about fitting their entire litter of children in their plane, however most don't really fly that many hours with them.

Again comparing used aircraft to new, apples to oranges.


Most new LSAs are around 130-150k, they land on land only, many are also kinda half aircraft, not very well thought out (like the sport cruiser and C162), 200k for a well designed folding wing amphib LSA, how is that so expensive compared to want else is out there.

Henning said:
The folding wing is everything to me as it allows me to get it to anywhere on the planet maxing at around $2500 with today's shipping rates. The folding wing allows you to have container or rolling trailer for your hangar that you can park anywhere. Amphib with folding wings means I can launch at any boat ramp and go fly.

The folding wing makes it an accessory to a vacation, not the focus of it. The folding wing means you can pack it up and ship it home or to a shop if it breaks along the way.
Click to expand...

And that.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Beats $364,000 for a new 172, and well all know how those are "4 seaters"

image.jpg



Per your example, I could also take that 200k and get a 185 Amphib and kick your bucs butt, of course were talking used vs new aircraft. The A5 will be a sweet little plane once the 10yr old used ones hit the market, but for the more money then brains types who buy new aircraft, you could do much worse for 200k.
Click to expand...

The problem is, Cessna isn't selling hardly any 172's at that price to anyone but flight schools . . . hardly a winning proposition for private owners until they are sold in the used market. I guess someone's got to take the hit on depreciation, it might as well be Spartan/E-R/American Flyers/etc. :D
 
SoonerAviator said:
The problem is, Cessna isn't selling hardly any 172's at that price to anyone but flight schools . . . hardly a winning proposition for private owners until they are sold in the used market. I guess someone's got to take the hit on depreciation, it might as well be Spartan/E-R/American Flyers/etc. :D
Click to expand...

It's always been that way though. A lot of the 172 fleet was from ER. I always liked the overhead 'brow light' window.
 
James331 said:
. . . Most new LSAs are around 130-150k, they land on land only, many are also kinda half aircraft, not very well thought out (like the sport cruiser and C162), 200k for a well designed folding wing amphib LSA, how is that so expensive compared to want else is out there.
Click to expand...

I guess maybe that's my problem with the LSA (and non-LSA) aircraft. While $200K may not be out of line for a folding-wing LSA compared to the rest of the $150K LSAs, I just don't feel like it's going to drive people toward aviation in droves like the LSA-category was intended to do. Sure, it provides an avenue for pilots who don't want to try for the medical, but $150K isn't going to get 95% of people considering GA as a hobby into an aircraft. I just wonder if Icon will be around in 5 years once the final price/orders are set in stone.
 
Henning said:
The folding wing is everything to me as it allows me to get it to anywhere on the planet maxing at around $2500 with today's shipping rates. The folding wing allows you to have container or rolling trailer for your hangar that you can park anywhere. Amphib with folding wings means I can launch at any boat ramp and go fly.

The folding wing makes it an accessory to a vacation, not the focus of it. The folding wing means you can pack it up and ship it home or to a shop if it breaks along the way.
Click to expand...

I can see the utility for repairs away from home, but I doubt a lot of people will be as adventurous as you by shipping it via container all over the nation just to take with them on vacation.
 
Bit of trivia - the 1928 Fairchild F71 had folding wings.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I can see the utility for repairs away from home, but I doubt a lot of people will be as adventurous as you by shipping it via container all over the nation just to take with them on vacation.
Click to expand...

There is a big market of people like me with a lot of money to spend, more than enough to make Icon a relative success in the aviation market. It's less than half the price of a Cirrus, plenty of money there as well.
 
Velocity173 said:
You all can have it. I'll be waving at you when I go by in my Raptor on floats as I make my way up to pressurized comfort at FL250. 130K for the aircraft and another 20K for floats. The 100K I saved over the Icon goes a long way for Jet-A. :yes:
Click to expand...

You know those floats come with a penalty, right? Probably going to set you back to around 220 kts and 8.5 gph I suspect. Still though, you'll be the only float plane in the flight levels and that's worth something.
 
Dav8or said:
You know those floats come with a penalty, right? Probably going to set you back to around 220 kts and 8.5 gph I suspect. Still though, you'll be the only float plane in the flight levels and that's worth something.
Click to expand...

The floats will also serve as nacelles for jet engines so he'll be able to cruise at Mach .94.
 
Dav8or said:
You know those floats come with a penalty, right? Probably going to set you back to around 220 kts and 8.5 gph I suspect. Still though, you'll be the only float plane in the flight levels and that's worth something.
Click to expand...

I've done a highly technical computer analysis on the drag penalty with floats and I figure on only losing 10 kts. I expect 290 KTAS at FL250. That's nothing to slouch about.

Also, I'm planning on routing some of the air that's used for pressurizing the cabin and direct it into the floats to pressurize them as well.. They'll be a valve on the aft of the float that lets the air escape. The thrust alone from that should be more than enough to offset the 10 kt drag penalty.

You all can have you're folding wings. I'll take a 300 kt float plane any day at 3/4 the cost.
 
I saw the MVP concept flying boat at Oshkosh. Same price point and delivery schedule as the Icon but it also has convertible space for camping on it. pretty damn slick. We'll have to watch that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top