I can take apart my vintage glider within 20 Minutes and the help of 2 people. Modern gliders can be assembled in even shorter times. The H206 Hornet from 1974 could be completely assembled and checked within less than 10 Minutes by two people. There are many one-man rigging systems already proven, I don’t think it will ever take half a day to assemble / disassemble.
An AOA indicator is installed on the C150, too. … and it’s even aural.
It’s very very unsexy to get out of your 911 (*) and then ask your hairdresser friend to help you for 20 minutes with the wings. It has to work like in the James Bond movie otherwise the evening won’t have the desired ending.
(*)
Cayenne Turbo if it’s on the trailer
Maybe I shouldn’t have bought that modern hardtop convertible with remote control for the roof when there are perfect 1970s convertibles where you only need 20 minutes and 2 people to open the roof? Consumers are mostly appalled by the crap we own and fly, I was shocked when I arrived at the FTO, too. We just got to accept and live with it, much like in the GDR people considered themselves lucky when they got a Trabant.
With the help of two people… excellent.
“Hi, do you mind coming to the pier to help me assemble my plane, after which I’ll bugger off into the sunset with this week’s flavor and leave you there to find your way home”.
Yep, I can see how that appeals to many helpers.
Does anyone call the neighbors anymore to push their Trabbi to get it started?
Yeah, well, 20 minutes 2 people get apart my 1956 Ka2b Rhönschwalbe. I estimate my 1953 Ka1 to be trailored within 15 Minutes. Ever seen an Apis Bee or an ASG29 rigged? I think saving the mass of a folding mechanism would be a nicer option, since the bird is already limited in payload (even more than an Ercoupe)
achimha wrote:
Exactly what the market needs,
Why would the market need something no one wants ? There is a whole bunch of amphibious microlights looking exactly like this, and with much better performance (same engine, less weight). There is some interest I guess, but no matter how you look at it, an amphibious aircraft is a niche product for very few specially interested pilots.
Judging by the number of deposits it would seem the “no one wants” assessment is a bit erroneous.
Might be “some might want it AND be able to afford it but none of those is actually going to fly it”. If so, well done to the marketeers / product managers at Icom. They’ll not be advancing recreational aviation a single inch but they do will gain a fair sum.
Why would you say none of those is going to fly it? Say you were a potential customer, what would make you NOT fly it?
People like me (low budget, limited piloting skills, little time to learn in depth) will never buy such a craft. Those that will pay far more than it is worth – as pointed out in several earlier replies – will do so for the looks. I must admit those looks are good indeed. But anyone actually buying this thing is clearly unaware of practical matters such as cost for value – and will likely be unaware of the difficulty of gaining the required license. “Hey that looks smart I want that” is the only possible explanation for someone to buy this – anybody who can read, compare, and think, will think twice.
Cost for value – do you really think the current GA offering is reasonable in terms of “cost for value” ?!
And again – if you were a customer – why would you NOT fly it?
