90!!!!! Holy sheet shyte Batman! But, at those levels of investment and profit, they would "only" have to sell 100 for $1.2MM each - about the price of a new, loaded G36 Bonanza.Well at 90 million investment, and a 30% profit margin, I hope they sold for close to 3 million each.
Having been part of the design team for a year, I don't disagree with the notion that manufacturing should be an integral part of every design process - it certainly was in every medical product I ever worked on. However, as the only engineer in the company who had any experience with design for MFG, and given the desire for only the highest quality work (which they have) and the drive from Industrial Design (which in all fairness was very responsive to pushback from engineering), its not a surprise that the plane MFG costs are a lot higher than originally desired.There is no excuse for not designing for efficient manufacturing. I guess they thought volume would somehow make everything work.
Right.Personally, I don't think that anyone has figured out how to do "efficient manufacturing" in carbon composites.
Hah! This is as close as I'll ever get. Yeah, that's my Hatz in the hangar, apparently the Icon's pilot clipped a tree on short final landing in the dark, went down the embankment between the runway and the hangars, ripped off the landing gear going over the retaining wall, and ended up there.
Think about how much money they could make if the offered an "electric" version. They could double the price, take pre orders for 10 years then deliver something that only has 30 min of endurance (about as much time as it takes to single virtue), and the contaminate would loooove it! Money and adoration would rain down on them from the heavens.Apparently you guys are missing the point of ICON's business model: They are in the business of creating jobs for themselves by selling dreams to naïve investors and want-to-be pilots. I submit to you that they have been VERY successful.
I know nothing about Icon quality level, but every european LSA and gliders manufacturers are kind of cheaper?I would be interested, however (and I believe that this general thought process was discussed in another thread about low cost composite aircraft that don't exist) in some evidence that ANYONE knows (not just theorizes, but actually knows and has evidence of) low cost carbon composite manufacturing at ICON's quality level within the range of expected volumes for this aircraft (lets say 25 - 500 units/year).
Perhaps you're right, but I think people either want to fly or they don't and won't be motivated to fly at any price. Those who want to fly make it happen somehow....either renting, building, buying cheap, or if fortunate they can afford whatever appeals to them. I'm sure Icon's target market is the same people who drive Porsches, Ferarris, etc.OK I have checked in on Icon's progress from time to time. On their business model I have only 1 general comment. Until they can produce a LSA aircraft that costs the same as a typical car, and yes I mean typical, about 20 to 30K there will never be a long line of folks willing to become the next batch of LSA pilots.
Are they amphibians, with retractable gear, folding wings, a CAP, AOA indication, etc.? There's no question that the ICON A5 is more expensive than all other LSA's, and that it's way too expensive, and that management decisions led to the excess costing. But it's also more complex, higher quality than ANY of the others, and even at the 70K€ to 150K€, level, those planes are not "cheap", or even "low cost". That was my point with that particular comment. Bring an LSA in for the average cost of a car (say $30K), and now you're talking "low cost".I know nothing about Icon quality level, but every european LSA and gliders manufacturers are kind of cheaper?
Pipistrel, like the Virus is 70K€, and the more luxurious like the blackshape, jmb vl3, elixir, etc... are more like 150K€ but still half the price of the Icon? They all use the same engine...