ICON Aircraft

[787Guy]

Marc,

Just curious - how much would you estimate Icon has spent trying to get their design to market ? I have a friend in Tehachapi that says they are throwing money around worse then a band of drunken sailors.

Edited December 4, 2014 by 787Guy

[Marc Zeitlin]

Just curious - how much would you estimate Icon has spent trying to get their design to market?

Well, I don't think that's public information, but it's a LOT of $$$. As you can see here:

 

http://www.iconaircraft.com/news/icon-aircraft-raises-60-million-of-investment-capital.html

 

the LAST round of investment was $60M.

 

I have a friend in Tehachapi that says they are throwing money around worse then a band of drunken sailors.

Yeah, but not on the same things. Far fewer hookers and blow, and a lot more tooling and human resources. Although, I suppose, that could be about the same thing, depending upon how you look at it...

 

Who's your friend?

 

Seriously, they've invested a LOT of $$$ and expect to sell a LOT of planes. As a previous employee, a shareholder and a pilot who'd like to see aviation continue in the US, I fervently hope they succeed. If you haven't seen the plane up close, you should do so at OSH next year. VERY impressive, especially the wing fold mechanism, of which I'm very proud of my contribution in the early architecture stage. One person can fold both wings in about 2 minutes or less. The engineer who performed the detail design and testing is VERY good.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Marc Zeitlin

[rviglierchio]

Marc,

Just curious - how much would you estimate Icon has spent trying to get their design to market ? I have a friend in Tehachapi that says they are throwing money around worse then a band of drunken sailors.

Supposed to be moving to Vacaville. You'd think they'd have enough fiscal sense to get out of CA....

[rviglierchio]

Supposed to be moving to Vacaville. You'd think they'd have enough fiscal sense to get out of CA....

I was standing in front of their booth at Osh with a friend that dragged his butt out there in an Osprey. He commented that this thing was near his empty weight and had almost 1/3 less horsepower and his was a serious dog...how to sell that for $200k...!

[787Guy]

I just wonder who they paid off at the FAA to get that bump-up in empty weight to remain an S-LSA ? They were seriously dead in the water until that. I saw them at OSH 2008. They were really outsiders to the LSA market at that time and didn't really seem to have a clue back then. I know that Burt Rutan has not exactly said kind things about their design.

[Marc Zeitlin]

I just wonder who they paid off at the FAA to get that bump-up in empty weight to remain an S-LSA?

The weight limitation of LSA aircraft is a detriment to safety, and the whole industry will eventually get a higher limit. ICON is just the first to blaze that path. The weight increase was granted based on the safety features added to the aircraft (stall/spin resistance, etc.). The implication that there was a bribe is absurd, and an insult to the folks that work there (or used to, like myself).

 

They were seriously dead in the water until that.

And you know this how? We had contingency plans for lowering the weight to the original requirement if the weight exemption was not granted. We were hardly "dead in the water", or anywhere close to it.

 

I saw them at OSH 2008. They were really outsiders to the LSA market at that time and didn't really seem to have a clue back then.

In what way? Because they're not aiming the aircraft at the standard, minuscule LSA market of old, medical losing white guys? They're the only company that understands that expanding the market, and designing a plane for the expanded market, rather than for aging existing pilots, is the way to both advance aviation and make some $$$.

 

I know that Burt Rutan has not exactly said kind things about their design.

As much as I like Burt, he has a personal issue with the Scaled folks who left to work at ICON back in 2007. He is/was not in any way familiar with the detailed design.

[787Guy]

Marc,

Wow, we're really far apart on this issue - I'm not even quite sure where to start. For one thing the weight limit for LSA aircraft was pretty much copied from the existing European Microlight category. This category of aircraft was initially where most of the S-LSA aircraft ended up coming from and proved to provide scores of completely safe aircraft for many years over in Europe. As a matter of fact the Pipistrel Virus which comes in well under this weight (circa 630lbs) is considered by NASA to be a very noteworthy aircraft and has won numerous awards and Challenges. The short wing version of this aircraft is so fast it's not even allowed to be considered an LSA - 160+knots from a Rotax 912 ULS !  And I'll guarantee you that Pipistrel did not spend anywhere close to 60+ million dollars to bring it to market. Furthermore Pipistrel has actually delivered into customers hands over 650 of these aircraft. How many has Icon delivered ? And that is just one aircraft of many flying around at this supposed dangerously unsafe weight. Have you ever been to the Aero Show in Friedrichshafen, Germany ?  Every time I go I find myself wondering what ever happened to the innovation we used to have in this country when it comes to small aircraft ?

 

If I had been on the FAA Light Sport Aviation Branch I would have happily allowed Icon to increase the aircraft weight by the actual weight of the stall/spin avoidance device and not a pound more. The rules are the rules and if the engineers and designers can't make it fit they shouldn't get a pass based on some device that doesn't weigh anywhere close to what they were given weight wise. But the rules are different for companies that have millions and millions of dollars. Look at the SportCub - allowed to have an O-360 engine in an LSA as long as they promise to only use it in take off and climb mode - Really ?   Do you think Searey, Seamax and Mermaid might want to get a bump-up in weight too ? Well unfortunately none of them have anything close to the financial horsepower of Icon and or SportCub.

 

The whole capture a different market thing is interesting. I remember seeing Icon at a Car Show and also a Boat Show. It's a great idea if you're trying to sell a single engine FIXED GEAR aircraft. It's a very different thing when you're selling a "re-positionable" gear amphibian and actively telling people that they will ONLY need 20 hours to fly it !  Flying an amphib is VERY different than just a regular retractable gear aircraft. There really isn't any muscle memory that sets in like it does in a regular retract because sometimes the gear must be down and sometimes it must be up. Even though it sounds very simple it is extremely easy to mess up. I don't know how many thousands of hours I had when I started flying the Grumman Widgeon but the whole time even at my hour level I was never quite at ease with it - not like in regular retracts anyway. So to tell people that it's very easy to learn and  that they only need 20 hours of instruction seems more than disingenuous.

 

I foresee a great deal of what I call "The Cirrus Effect" once Icons finally do go into service. By that I mean much like the Cirrus Aircraft owners - people with more money than aviation common sense. People that don't have the time for additional flight instruction - they're too important to be bothered with that. "Afterall this thing has got a ton of safety features built in to it, heck it's just a flying jetski -right?". Time will surely tell.

 

 

In summary I'm unable to be favorably impressed by any company that has spent that much money trying to bring a Light Sport Aircraft to market and still not delivered. History is rife with truly innovative, unique and complex aircraft that came to market costing too much and selling for too little to make up the costs.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Wow, we're really far apart on this issue - I'm not even quite sure where to start.

First of all, I have no idea why we're talking about ICON aircraft on a canard forum. But that's up to Jon to shut down if he wants.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, certainly, and there are many that share it. Obviously, until ICON starts shipping to the 1200 customers that have placed orders (what are the other LSA MFG's backlogs?) we won't know what the truth of the matter is.

 

As a matter of fact the Pipistrel Virus which comes in well under this weight (circa 630lbs)...

That's the empty weight, and it's not an amphibian. The MGW of LSA amphibious aircraft is 1430 - the A5 will have a MGW of 1510 lb., even though the exemption is for 1680 lb. MGW. So we're talking about 80 lb. here.

 

And I'll guarantee you that Pipistrel did not spend anywhere close to 60+ million dollars to bring it to market.

I won't argue that ICON has spent a lot more $$$ than it might have had to. Idling for a few years when the market was in the toilet due to the economy didn't help, but there are numerous other reasons for the extent of the expenditures, not all of which I was in agreement with as an employee.

 

Furthermore Pipistrel has actually delivered into customers hands over 650 of these aircraft. How many has Icon delivered?

Pipestrel has been selling aircraft for 25 years. That's an average of 26/year. Let's say they currently sell 100/year. ICON's projections are for 500/year when production ramps up over a 3-5 year period.

 

This is not just some guy in a basement waving his hands around about sales projections - ICON has done substantial market research in numerous areas (not just old guys losing their medicals) to determine sales projections and price points. Check back in in 25 years to see how many aircraft ICON has sold.

 

And that is just one aircraft of many flying around at this supposed dangerously unsafe weight.

It's extremely disingenuous to put words into other people's mouths. NO ONE claimed that the MGW of 1320 lb. for LSA's, or 1430 lb. for amphibious LSA's was dangerously unsafe, or unsafe at all. What I SAID was that ICON is increasing the safety level, and that this costs weight. Not at all the same thing, so please don't misrepresent my statements.

 

 

If I had been on the FAA Light Sport Aviation Branch I would have happily allowed Icon to increase the aircraft weight by the actual weight of the stall/spin avoidance device and not a pound more. The rules are the rules and if the engineers and designers can't make it fit they shouldn't get a pass based on some device that doesn't weigh anywhere close to what they were given weight wise.

80 lb. is hardly a major difference in weight. You might also want to look at the history of the decision making process, and which LSA MFG's supported the exemption and why, and which other folks who know what they're talking about in the aircraft world supported the exemption and why.

 

But the rules are different for companies that have millions and millions of dollars. Look at the SportCub - allowed to have an O-360 engine in an LSA as long as they promise to only use it in take off and climb mode - Really?   Do you think Searey, Seamax and Mermaid might want to get a bump-up in weight too? Well unfortunately none of them have anything close to the financial horsepower of Icon and or SportCub.

I assume you're talking about the Cubcrafter's Carbon Cub, and now this has just turned into a rant with no data or facts to back it up.

 

The whole capture a different market thing is interesting... I don't know how many thousands of hours I had when I started flying the Grumman Widgeon but the whole time even at my hour level I was never quite at ease with it - not like in regular retracts anyway. So to tell people that it's very easy to learn and  that they only need 20 hours of instruction seems more than disingenuous.

You're really not comparing flying a Widgeon to an LSA amphibian, are you? Really?

 

In any case, ICON is developing a training syllabus and will have in-house training facilities and people over which they have total control. An airplane will not be turned over to a customer until they've passed the training IN an A5.

 

I foresee a great deal of what I call "The Cirrus Effect" once Icons finally do go into service. By that I mean much like the Cirrus Aircraft owners - people with more money than aviation common sense. People that don't have the time for additional flight instruction - they're too important to be bothered with that. "Afterall this thing has got a ton of safety features built in to it, heck it's just a flying jetski -right?". Time will surely tell.

And Cirrus' safety record is now equivalent to other aircraft in its class.

 

As you say, time will tell - we'll just have to see whether a company that's done an incredible amount of work and research to try to revitalize aviation in America (not to mention make $$$) and expand it knows what they're talking about, or whether folks that stand on the sidelines throwing tomatoes without understanding what's actually going on are correct.

 

 

In summary I'm unable to be favorably impressed by any company that has spent that much money trying to bring a Light Sport Aircraft to market and still not delivered. History is rife with truly innovative, unique and complex aircraft that came to market costing too much and selling for too little to make up the costs.

Are you HOPING for ICON to fail?

 

Personally, when they start shipping aircraft in 2015, I expect to see their order book explode. The problem they will have is how to make them fast enough.

[Jon Matcho]

First of all, I have no idea why we're talking about ICON aircraft on a canard forum. But that's up to Jon to shut down if he wants.

 

I did split this out from the other topic and move here to the Coffee House sub-forum, so feel free.  It's still relating to composite aircraft, which is close enough (at least for the Coffee House).