The discrepancy probably relates to the BRS chute. The base price quoted does not include the chute. The chute is an available option, but that option is deemed mandatory for deliveries in the U.S. That was the agreement reached with the FAA when it blessed the increase in the gross weight.

Their website does not list, last time I checked, the fuel capacity. It does list a gross weight and standard empty weight. However, the difference between these two numbers, representing useful load is a bite misleading and can't be put into a proper practical perspective without knowing the weight of the mandatory, optional, BRS system, the fuel capacity, and the likely weight of the radio package which is also an option, etc.

Based on my weight and the above, I don't know if I could take my 3 year old granddaughter for a flight if the fuel tank is full. I live on a lake and am seaplane rated, but certainly would not buy one until these important details are clarified.

Nice trick.

Sell the airplane to customers as "$189K", then charge major money for the chute option, which is "mandatory".


Something tells me that the buyers of this airplane might not be the most diligent about counting every pound. Something about selling an airplane to PWC folks.


No doubt.

The gestation period is so long that even if you really, really want one, someone will not want it any more and will sell you a position after they have hit the market and all the negatives become known.

There is absolutely no reason to buy a position today. Super risky, and you can get one sooner on the secondary market.

Mike C.

The discrepancy probably relates to the BRS chute. The base price quoted does not include the chute. The chute is an available option, but that option is deemed mandatory for deliveries in the U.S. That was the agreement reached with the FAA when it blessed the increase in the gross weight.

Their website does not list, last time I checked, the fuel capacity. It does list a gross weight and standard empty weight. However, the difference between these two numbers, representing useful load is a bite misleading and can't be put into a proper practical perspective without knowing the weight of the mandatory, optional, BRS system, the fuel capacity, and the likely weight of the radio package which is also an option, etc.

Based on my weight and the above, I don't know if I could take my 3 year old granddaughter for a flight if the fuel tank is full. I live on a lake and am seaplane rated, but certainly would not buy one until these important details are clarified.

Pretty decent write up in the AOPA mag this month.

Miracle airplane! Yes, that's exactly what I said!

I also never said (and do not believe) that the R44 is a POS. But it is a joke of a helicopter. For one thing, it has a piston engine. Density altitude makes it practically useless in the summer everywhere but close to sea level. I remember last summer just me and Ashley and her purse (250lbs total payload with both of us), and half fuel tanks, and not being able to get over 6,000 feet to clear terrain. Nope, have to take the valley and add 50 miles to what should have been a 60 mile trip!) Compare the 44's rotor head to that of a real helicopter (an AS350 for example) and tell me that it is not a joke! Now, my R44 was very good to me. It did exactly what it was designed to do, and that was to be a helicopter which is reliable and absolutely dirt cheap to operate. The next step up from a 44 is a massive one not only in cost of entry but also operations which is the reason it took me so long to make the move.

I was in McCall, ID yesterday, elev 5000 feet and it was hot. 75 when we landed and upper 80's when we left so a DA of 7000-7800. There was an R44 giving rides all day, usually filling the seats. Sometimes with kids and sometimes a mix of kids and adults.

I'm sure you realize this, but low-n-slow to the nearest beach is the point. At 100' doing "nap of the earth" flying with the windows down is a lot of fun and the reason Cubs are still very popular and why they don't buy them to go 300KIAS at FL300 for long ranges. Different missions for different folks. I do admit a larger one that could could be loaded up like a PBY for a high speed trip to the Caribbean would be amazing.

I think the A5 is very cool. I'd buy one if I had the extra $$. I think they'd be an awesome commuter.

I'm sure you realize this, but low-n-slow to the nearest beach is the point. At 100' doing "nap of the earth" flying with the windows down is a lot of fun and the reason Cubs are still very popular and why they don't buy them to go 300KIAS at FL300 for long ranges. Different missions for different folks. I do admit a larger one that could could be loaded up like a PBY for a high speed trip to the Caribbean would be amazing.

I think the A5 is very cool. I'd buy one if I had the extra $$. I think they'd be an awesome commuter.

cool

Why is it better than this
http://www.seamaxamerica.com/index.php/ ... n-sitescom

Right off the bat, about $50k in price. Probably the biggest thing is carbon fiber construction of the A5 vs cloth covered wings/aluminum of the M22. Usable load is a little higher on the A5. But I'm sure Icon will say the biggest difference is you can't spin an A5 and it has a BRS option that many folks like these days. Minor differences are cosmetics and avionics. The A5 is more like a BMW inside and the M22 is more like a J5 cub.

Choose your price and pleasure

The M22 have folding wings and trailer option?

That seems like the biggest functional difference.

Mike C.

The M22 is more like a Motorola flip-phone, and the A5 is more like an iPhone 6.

The M22 have folding wings and trailer option?

That seems like the biggest functional difference.

Mike C.

So the M22 is easier to hold, talk on and put in your pocket and the icon has great marketing and design? (: