Page 1 of 39 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 384

Thread: Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718

    Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

    Last published report had the FAA delaying a promised September decision to the end of 2012. Searches online and going to the usual suspect websites has resulted in no updated info on the subject.


    Do any of my fellow members/intrepid flyers have any "Insider Knowledge" that you can share?

  2. #2
    FWIW - this was the last post on the Icon Aircraft Facebook page, dated January 17: "This week we achieved another major production milestone: the fuselage design drawings were released to our tooling supplier. The release of these drawings allows composite manufacturing of the A5 fuselage to begin at Cirrus Aircraft and is a significant advancement toward first customer deliveries this year."

    Going back a number of posts on the page, and I see no mention of the weight increase exemption mentioned.

    Zack

    Zack

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Ya, they've been moving forward with production related stuff at a furious pace in the last few months. They must know something we don't or they possess over the top confidence!

  4. #4
    zaitcev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Zack Baughman View Post
    Going back a number of posts on the page, and I see no mention of the weight increase exemption mentioned.
    To the best of my knowledge, Icon never ever acknowledged or publicized their request for weight exemption. Not on Facebook, not anywhere. It was found long after filing by their competitor, Independent Aircraf, who went to the pains of designing to existing limits, and were upset. It was long enough for the original request for comment period expiring. After a brief outrage, the comments on the proposed rulemaking were re-opnened. Icon is still silent on this even though everyone who cares can easily know about the issue. And why would they comment? If they come out and say that they cannot deliver on their promises of LSA, there's going to be a massive deposit exodus and a wave of bad publicity outside of narrow aviation circles. If they keep silence, then it's just commentary in fringe forums like this one. The story is in media blackout, and that's to Icon's advantage. They will not mention it as long as they can.

    Remember the deal with Lotus to design structural interior parts? Being a beginner in airplanes, I don't know how desperate for weight savings one has to be to turn to structural interior, this late in the game too. Nobody in the press paid slightest attention to that hint, they just regurgitated Icon's presser.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Your knowledge is absolutely correct zaitcev. The only place where I differ with you is with the fallout aspect if they don't get the excemption. In that event(which BTW I do not believe will happen), it's well speculated that Icon will go for certification in the Primary Category even though that goes against their marketing and target consumer philosophy and strategy. Approximately one-third of the total deposit holders(about 1000) are non-pilots so they'll probably only lose those or most of those and those few with medical issues.
    Last edited by Floatsflyer; 01-23-2013 at 04:33 PM.

  6. #6
    cluttonfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    World traveler
    Posts
    450
    Honestly, I would have to say that I oppose this and any similar exemption requests. Otherwise, what's the point of the LSA category in the first place?

    At 1,320 lbs (599 kg) for a landplane and 1,430 (649 kg) for a seaplane/amphibian, the LSA weight limits are already quite generous for two-seat aircraft of modest power and performance. Compare those with the European microlight regulations of 450 kg for a landplane and 495 kg for a seaplane/amphibian!

    For example, the Volmer VJ-22 Sportsman, designed in the 1950s, comes in at 1,000 lbs empty and 1,500 lbs gross with a Continental C-85, Aeronca Champ wings and a fiberglass-covered plywood hull. With today's lighter but more powerful Rotax engine, modern composite materials, lighter instruments, etc. it just shouldn't be that hard to come in under 1,430 lbs.

    Exemptions will simply encourage companies to push the limits to the point that LSA performance parameters will be so close to standard aircraft that the FAA might well simply eliminate the LSA category and Sport Pilot rating.
    *******
    Matthew Long, Editor
    cluttonfred.info
    A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
    and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

  7. #7
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    They're already down to no flaps and having to choose between retractable gear or power wing folding mechanism (sorry, can't have both).
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

  8. #8
    cluttonfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    World traveler
    Posts
    450
    An what about the air conditioning, the DVD entertainment system and -- gasp! -- you mean we can't have a mini-bar?!? ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
    They're already down to no flaps and having to choose between retractable gear or power wing folding mechanism (sorry, can't have both).
    *******
    Matthew Long, Editor
    cluttonfred.info
    A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
    and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
    They're already down to no flaps and having to choose between retractable gear or power wing folding mechanism (sorry, can't have both).
    The flaps have been back on for a year now--they received a lot of criticsm from seaplane pilots- and came to see the error of their ways. If the weight increase is approved you will be able to have BOTH retracts and in-cockpit electrical wing folding.

  10. #10
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    What reason does the FAA have to grant their wish? I'm glad to see they realized the error of their ways. After 2000 hours on floats, I couldn't imagine flying a seaplane with no flaps.
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •