Why the Icon A5 is Failing 

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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 !!

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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 :(

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...

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

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.

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

#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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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....

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!

🎉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.

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.

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

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

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.

What weapons can be fitted?

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.

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

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

That purchase agreement alone is a deal killer

It’s basically a half million dollar aircraft!

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

is that tail stabiliser shaking at 2:56 normal?

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

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.

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.

$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.

I really love this airplane. My hang up is the price. It's too expensive. I can understand 200k. But at 400k, one would expect to get more. Longer distance of travel, better instruments, equipped for night flying, way more than the 95 knots speed that is offered, and more room for luggage, or at least a 3rd seat for a 3rd person.

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.

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.......

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

What is the best in this category

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.

95kts that's quite slow

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.

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.

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

How did those crashes happen? The parachute didn’t deploy?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Too bad. Nice little airplane.

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...

Is there some abnormal tail flutter at 2:59?

Killed it with that purchasers agreement.

It was under powered, overpriced and performance of a C-152, and crashed a lot. Failure assured.