![]() |
ICON bankrupt
Probably the only airplane I have NOT wanted to own. Worst of both worlds of a boat and a plane.
Maybe if you had two lake houses and wanted to fly between them it would be useful? I'm not sure what the target market or mission was other than a few rich persons plaything. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-11-bankruptcy |
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 3795972)
Probably the only airplane I have NOT wanted to own. Worst of both worlds of a boat and a plane.
Maybe if you had two lake houses and wanted to fly between them it would be useful? I'm not sure what the target market or mission was other than a few rich persons plaything. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/2024-04-08/icon-aircraft-files-chapter-11-bankruptcy |
Apparently the original poster hasn't flown a Lake Amphibian, or any other amphib. Or seaplane.
I wasn't impressed with the Chinese sale. Icon pushed to market their airplane as car-like, much as Cirrus, and up-scale and up-price in a way that may have missed a wider target market. They also had a weird, cliquish thing going within the company; all instructors and demo pilots were military buddies; a closed kind of group that brought a different dynamic to the operation which was not necessarily in harmony with general aviation. |
Personally if I wanted a flying boat, it would need to be big enough to camp in. Otherwise floats would be fine, and potentially more flexible. That's just me though.
|
Floats, and especially a hull ("flying boat") do offer advantages in a single engine airplane, in the even tof a power loss and subsequent off-field forced landing. The Icon does one better with a ballistic parachute. Options.
It also has the decided advantage, when flying over water as a single engine piston airplane, of choices in a forced landing that aren't available to land-airplanes. Airplanes with a hull tend to be a bit more aerodynamic than floats on land airplanes, thus faster and less draggy. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3796109)
Personally if I wanted a flying boat, it would need to be big enough to camp in. Otherwise floats would be fine, and potentially more flexible. That's just me though.
https://www.wingtents.com/product-page/wingtent A camping boat wouldn't fly well, and a nice flyer won't have room to sleep. Same reason we won't have a nice flying car anytime soon. I guess I applaud the ambition. |
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
(Post 3796024)
Apparently the original poster hasn't flown a Lake Amphibian, or any other amphib. Or seaplane.
I wasn't impressed with the Chinese sale. Icon pushed to market their airplane as car-like, much as Cirrus, and up-scale and up-price in a way that may have missed a wider target market. They also had a weird, cliquish thing going within the company; all instructors and demo pilots were military buddies; a closed kind of group that brought a different dynamic to the operation which was not necessarily in harmony with general aviation. |
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 3796384)
A camping boat wouldn't fly well, and a nice flyer won't have room to sleep. Same reason we won't have a nice flying car anytime soon.
I guess I applaud the ambition. |
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 3796384)
Better off getting a high wing and just using something like this:
https://www.wingtents.com/product-page/wingtent A camping boat wouldn't fly well, and a nice flyer won't have room to sleep. Same reason we won't have a nice flying car anytime soon. I guess I applaud the ambition. Grandad flew PBY's in the war. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3796699)
I was in the Navy, I like boats.
Grandad flew PBY's in the war. You'd have to teach your wife to be the LSO though. Or develop MAGIC THROWRUG system. ;) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:02 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands