This episode is brought to you by Curiosity Stream. Signup using the
promo code DWAYNESAVIATION or the link in the description, you will save 25% off!.
In this day and age, the importance of marketing cannot be underestimated,
and companies have understood that innovating their marketing strategies
is as important as the innovations incorporated in their products.
This is why companies seek to be more and more creative when promoting their brands,
not only highlighting the features and benefits of their products but also playing with surrealism
and sometimes even making a bit of fun of their creations just to draw attention to them. Some
people believe that those that can afford planes don’t sit in front of the TV or social media, but
in reality, those that influence their decisions do, so it is possible to sell a bad product with
good marketing than it is to sell an excellent product with a not so good marketing job. And as
women are much more powerful and influential today than in the 50s and 60s, the importance of paying
great attention to the "wife acceptance" factor is crucial; it can in fact make or break a design.
In this modern age where innovation in aviation is at its peak, and there is not much you can do
to stand out in the general aviation industry, is marketing more important than innovation?
If you look up the Icon Aircraft site, the first thing you will see is: "The ICON A5 reinvents
recreational aviation and lets you bring the exhilaration of flight to life like never before.
Sport flying with the A5 is tailored to pilots who primarily fly for recreation — easy to fly,
lightweight, and low operating costs—hmmmm, quite an interesting sales pitch. Icon aircraft
took everything that wasn't aviation-like and made it aviation-like. Looking into this plane,
the automobile inspired dashboard has some appeal going on. Icon did not exactly target
aviators when marketing this product; they pitched it to anyone that could afford it,
more like trying to create a niche out of nothing. The A5 isn't particularly
impressive in terms of performance; almost every two-seat Amphibian outperforms it,
and the Searey offers significantly better performance for a fraction of the price.
The need to perfect your product, like your marketing strategy, is a lesson Icon learned
the hard way. Because behind this façade is a product full of unsorted issues and a management
board full of confusion. Series of crashes riddled the design, and in retrospect, the company boasted
that a large percentage of its depositors were people who didn’t yet hold pilot certificates.
And, since the Icon A5 is a light sport aircraft, they needed to obtain only sport pilot
certificates, which require half as much flying time as private pilot certificates. Those who
anticipated a tragic mix of inexperienced pilots flying on and off the water in the unforgiving,
highly dynamic, low-altitude environment were quick to pile on and say they told us so.
But a closer look at Icon accidents shows the truth isn’t so tidy. In fact,
low-time sport pilots are yet to be involved in a single Icon accident. Instead, it’s high-time,
experienced pilots—many with advanced ratings. The first high-profile Icon mishap took place
in April 2017, in Key Largo, Florida, when a former fighter pilot hit the water with
enough impact to crack the airplane’s composite hull. A few months later, Roy Halladay followed,
then the plane's designer and main test pilot. These crashes dealt a huge blow to the company.
The initial idea of changing general aviation by building a far more accessible,
entry-level aircraft that would appeal to pilots and non-pilots alike had been abandoned,
which was initially a crucial component of the company's presentation. Icon Aircraft,
which first appeared on the scene with the promise of a tiny little Sport Plane
with great amphibious possibilities and low-cost innovation for less than $140,000,
had turned into a litany of failed promises. All kinds of marketing hype and deception,
very restricted availability, and a price that was two to practically three times more than what
was first envisioned all contributed to the overall negative experience.
Icon Aircraft advised clients in 2017 who had put a deposit on the A5 that the price
for the aircraft to be delivered in 2018 had risen by fifty percent, to a total of
three hundred and eighty-nine thousand dollars for a "fully fitted" version. This incorporates
retractable landing gear and other amenities that won't be available on the standard model,
which will cost $269,000. Evidence of what may be a tenuous financial position for the company was
indicated with Icon’s pronouncement that all of the 2018 aircraft scheduled for production would
consist of the costly "Fully Loaded" versions and base models will not be delivered until 2019 at
the earliest. Moreover, the company had a backlog of orders and was plagued by production delays.
The purchaser's agreement for the ICON A5 was made public in April 2016. It immediately drew
widespread criticism for including several contentious provisions not typically seen
in aircraft purchase agreements. These included pilot training and maintenance that was legally
mandated, agreements not to sue, the necessity for factory airframe overhauls every 2,000 hours
or ten years (whichever came first), and a restriction on the life of the aircraft of
6,000 hours, or thirty years, whichever came first. In addition, every aircraft would be fitted
with a camera and recorder to monitor the pilot. The manufacturer would own these components,
but the owner would be responsible for their upkeep. Owners were compelled to sign an agreement
stating that they would be "supportive" of Icon Aircraft, and any new owners would
have to sign the same deal or face fines. It is generally agreed upon that Icon was
a program with a bleak outlook, that it had been grossly mismanaged, and that the company had been
dishonest throughout the entirety of the preceding decade, frequently relying on grandiose claims and
aggressive marketing to make the company appear more capable than it has demonstrated to be.
This is not an anomaly; new plane companies, especially those arising from Silicon Valley
always tend to overpromise. They think with a few innovations here and there they could
revolutionise aviation by changing the scale of airplane production,
just like the founders of Eclipse Aerospace, who placed emphasis on the economics of scale,
where the average cost per unit of a product decreases with the increase in production.
The problem with this logic is that airplanes are hand built, so production costs do not go
down by increasing production, because to produce more, you need much more of everything; workers,
factories, basically everything. So even if an unrealistic rate of 5000 units were
sold each year, it would not deliver economics of scale, and Eclipse Aviation learned this the hard
way. It was costing the company twice as much to produce aircraft as they were selling them for.
So, the question is, is having a stable product better than having a strong marketing force?
Every avgeek is familiar with the Mooney M20. The M20’s main competition is the Cirrus SR22
and the Cessna TTX, which are slower, more expensive, and, for some people;
less sexy than Mooney’s slick little retractable gear speedster (well, not for me). But the Cirrus
SR22 outsold Mooneys by a factor of around 50:1. Why? In part, it’s because Cirrus has a stable
business profile, its marketing is super slick, its technology is top-notch,
and it has the parachute, which a lot of pilots, and not just their spouses,
are asking for these days. Did the M20, which is time-consuming to build, ever really have a
chance against the SR22? Of course, it didn’t. Nothing exists in a vacuum, which is to say
that Mooney’s success will come from syphoning sales from Cirrus. How would the two look to a
potential buyer if they were compared? The SR22 carries more than the Mooney, but the M20 flies
farther, faster, and burns less gas than the Cirrus, so performance wise, that’s a draw.
Both designs are stable and great, the SR22 looks much better because it’s a much more
recent design, but the biggest difference was made on the market. While Cirrus was busy pushing their
sleek speedstar on the marketing, Mooney kept their fingers crossed believing the old-fashioned
saying that those that can afford expensive machines are not behind the television. But the
data proves them wrong. For example, the majority of my viewers are between the ages of 45 and 60;
that’s typically the range that can afford planes. If you search for the SR22 on YouTube,
Facebook, or Instagram, you will find over a thousand videos, but if you search for the M20,
you will see few videos; even the newest line of the M20 is hard to find online.
The major selling point of the SR22 "the parachute or the wife’s factor."
Mooney did not incorporate it, because they believed that real pilots wouldn’t pick up
a parachute at the expense of useful load. So the SR22 in most ways draw the match in
performance, won in innovation, so did Mooney try to be cost competitive? NO! Mooney rolled
out the M20 for the same price that gets the SR22. So, think of this, you have a million dollars to
buy a plane. You see two options; both are nearly the same price, but one is not only more elegant
and modern, but it also has a parachute, and you can't go for the other one because it's much
cheaper; which one will you go for? The newest M20 Acclaim Ultra had a retail price of $800,000,
but a 10-year-old M20 with almost identical performance could be found for sale for a
third or a quarter of that value, so the decision for those who wanted a Mooney is clear: go for a
decade old one. The last M20 wasn’t only competing with Cirrus but also with its predecessors.
So that brings us to the question; is having a great product, a stable business model,
and a great marketing force all it takes to succeed in the general aviation industry?
The Cirrus SR22 may be the leader of general aviation, but not for long.
Well, they’re not going to fall in a year or two, or in the next five years,
but the downfall is looming. Engine technology is horribly outdated, and plane makers are sticking
to this old technology with their heartsheartst. The Continental engine that powers the SR-22
needs more technological advancement in fuel and ignition management. Most pilots are looking for
something superior with simpler management that burns diesel and has a single lever control.
However, getting rid of these old-fashioned engines is a challenging proposal, but it
has been accomplished by Diamond Aircraft. The Thielert Centurion 4.0, a V8 Mercedes-Benz diesel
engine also utilised in the S-Class, served as the foundation for this project from the beginning.
Cirrus planned to test the engine on the SR22, but because of the cost of
re-engineering the aircraft to accommodate the greater gross weight, they dropped the project,
citing that there is no significant improvement in performance that would justify the expenses.
Do we need a quantum leap in performance to scrap the outdated engines on modern planes?
The Centurion is significantly more smooth and straightforward than anything made by
Continental or Lycoming. You want to get things going; press the start button.
Do you like to pick up the pace? It's as simple as pushing the throttle forward. The operation
is optimised with a single lever control since there are no knobs or levers for adjusting the
mixture or the prop. When starting your engine on a cold day, you just switch on the glow plugs for
a few seconds before starting the engine. If one of the engines stops working while the aircraft is
in flight, flip the switch, and it feeders itself. Everything is straightforward and uncomplicated.
The IO-550 is a different story when it comes to starting it up. You have to prime it, adjust
the mixture, push the throttle a bit, and crank it. It may start immediately, but if it doesn't,
you'll have to go through those steps again. When the engine reaches operating temperature,
the throttle should be wide open. When it is cold, you need a furnace that can heat it for
fifteen minutes. Many hold the misconception that professional pilots do not need FADEC,
however, only time will tell. I get that Cirrus is attempting to balance contemporary engineering,
aesthetics, and safety; nevertheless, a million-dollar aircraft with engine
technology that's been around for half a century? That’s not right.
There is no serious competition in the industry, so customers continue to rush to purchase
the SR22. The Lancair Evolution piston with a FADEC-controlled Lycoming engine is a significant
improvement over the SR22, yet, only a few pilots are interested in flying experimental aircraft.
Textron has just acquired Pipistrel, indicating that the Panthera will be
available shortly. Let's see what Textron comes up with for the design, shall we?
FADEC, Jet A burning GA planes and everything will soon be a thing of the past,
because the way we fly is about to change. You can learn about the exciting future of aviation
on Curiositystream. A streaming service with thousands full length high quality documentaries,
exclusive, award-winning films and shows that you can’t watch anywhere else.. plus,
the deepest collection of the best documentaries from around the world – deeper
than any other streaming service out there. Subscribe at curiositystream.com/DWAYNESAVIATION
or simply scan the QR code orrrrrrrrrrr use promo code DWAYNESAVIATION and you will save 25% off!
It’s already one of the most affordable and best deals in streaming!
If you a curious person who loves to know more of everything, curiosity stream is
available to watch on all your favorite streaming devices worldwide, so what are you waiting for?