Standard for Van's RV demo rides.
Only given to licensed pilots. I was told up front that only the Van's factory pilot will take off & land, and no aerobatics.

I work for a helicopter OEM. We never let customers do the first pickup. We always fly the helicopter out to the middle of the field and then carefully hand it to them. It doesn't happen often, but we have had some customers "overestimate" their experience, currency, and/or ability. You just don't know.

"I gave it to the guy, blinked, and we were somehow hovering 20' over the roof of the hanger!" That really happened. Same demo pilot had to take the controls from a foreign military pilot, and the ensuing dive recovery was hard enough to set off the ELT.

It's a demo, not a lesson. I know...I get bummed out too.

I work for a helicopter OEM. We never let customers do the first pickup. [...]

It's a demo, not a lesson. I know...I get bummed out too.

Icon finally obtained Primary certification for A5. They did it for EU sales, but I wish they offered it in the U.S. too. It is easier to own a normal airplane than an S-LSA, and this may open a door for some people who cannot deal with weird sales terms, or the need to obtain a LOA for any minor modification.

https://www.iconaircraft.com/2023/12/26 ... e-icon-a5/

Bet a 180hp version without the restrictions of LSA would make a heck of a plane out of it

It's a heck of an airplane now - what Icon get out of 100 hp is impressive. 180 hp would only really help it get out of the water faster and it's pretty good now. Only about 20 hours experience some years ago, but the A5 is a well sorted out machine. Expect minor tweaks since then have improved things.

I would expect it is by now. Reminds me of a friend who built a beautiful Harmon Rocket who said “ It took me 8 years to build it and 5 to get it sorted out “. Understandable in a home built but less so with a manufactured aircraft IMO. Icon had lots of problems, releasing it too soon may be one of them.

From what I've heard it's not performance but useful load that it's lacking. Assuming that the airframe was capable of handling a higher gross weight, the higher horsepower would allow a lot more flexibility (read 2 people, bags and enough fuel to go somewhere).

The more logical power-up conversion for these aircraft would be to stick with the Rotax 9xx series and go for the higher takeoff power rating and/or higher altitude flat rating of other engines in the series - 914, 915, 916.

I would likely settle for the 914 to keep the power flat-rated for higher density altitude operations with minimal change to aircraft handling characteristics. Going all the way to a 916 might result in needing to increase rudder area etc to handle the very large increase in power. The 914 is much more likely to be as close to a "drop in" replacement as is currently available.

The new 4 blade prop has about 25% better acceleration. Big Improvement!

Thats only 160hp

180 with a composite reversing CS prop would be what I’d want to see on a plane like this, especially with the price point

The ones I flew were among the 20 first conforming versions that for a time they were willing to rent out. I'm sure they had plenty of challenges before then, but the new ones seem to be about the same. It has a relatively forgiving hull to water angle relationship on landing compared to other seaplanes I've flown including the SeaRey and the Lake.

For some reason they only took 140 of the 250 pounds (from memory) that the FAA was willing to waiver them. The extra 110 pounds on paper would solve the two up and full fuel problem.

My use case would be to hop from friend to friend and eatery to eatery in a region well populated by lakes and camps. It's not really a going anywhere machine IMHO. It's also very dock unfriendly which is an issue with any small flying boat. Beach it if you can; ramps fairly easily.

What one wants and what is even moderately feasible are two different things. Adding power comes with other very significant tradeoffs. By adding 80% more power one might as well redesign the entire aircraft as many, if not most structural and aerodynamic elements would likely not withstand the stresses that come with that much of a power boost. The 916 weighs less than 200lbs dry while an O-360 comes in at well over 300lbs - this in an airplane that already is challenged to produce satisfactory useful load. Oh, those ponies need to be fed, too, so let's look at doubling fuel tankage to match the doubled fuel burn. It's a vicious circle that ends in a less-than-positive outcome.

Thats only 160hp

180 with a composite reversing CS prop would be what I’d want to see on a plane like this, especially with the price point

Those who want a higher power A5 might want to ask their investor friends to help out Vickers
https://www.vickersaircraft.com/