Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[WWhunter]

After reading all these responses there is a couple of comments by a few posters that really iratated me...those guys that said flying on floats without flaps is crazy! Are you guys serious? How many Champs, Chiefs, Cubs, PA-12's, etc. are out there and are mounted on floats? They have been flying perfectly fine for 60-70 years off the lakes and rivers of the world without the need of flaps!!! Learn to fly the plane...granted flaps are another tool to help TO and landings but they are far from neccessary.
Ok, back to the original topic. Rant over.

[Floatsflyer]

They have been flying perfectly fine for 60-70 years off the lakes and rivers of the world without the need of flaps!!! Learn to fly the plane...granted flaps are another tool to help TO and landings but they are far from neccessary.

While you're at it, why don't you eliminate ailerons as well. In applying your logic, they too must be unnecessary as planes for years had been flying perfectly fine using wing warping. WW, it's about newly applied innovation over the ages that made flying safer, easier and more controllable in all attitudes(and on all surfaces).

[steveinindy]

On a somewhat related note, as a result of my reading on here about all the headaches of small flying boats. I was thinking of working on a small flying boat design as my LSA project. The comments here make me want to think twice about that approach. If one were to design an amphibian with removable floats, does the MTOW stay at the higher amphibian limit or revert back the "land plane" limit when the floats are removed?

it's about newly applied innovation over the ages that made flying safer, easier and more controllable in all attitudes(and on all surfaces)

Anything that safely reduces the velocity at which you approach the ground or water should be viewed as a good thing.

[cluttonfred]

On a somewhat related note, as a result of my reading on here about all the headaches of small flying boats. I was thinking of working on a small flying boat design as my LSA project. The comments here make me want to think twice about that approach. If one were to design an amphibian with removable floats, does the MTOW stay at the higher amphibian limit or revert back the "land plane" limit when the floats are removed?

Logically, removable floats would drop you down to the landplane limit once removed, but retractable gear or floats would allow you to stay at the limit. It makes sense--there is a limit for landplanes, but since floats and their struts are heavier than wheels, and flying boat hulls heaveir than ordinary fuselages, the weight limit is more generous if you want to operate off water. If you remove the floats altogether, you don't need the more generous weight allowance.

[WWhunter]

floatsflyer, "While you're at it, why don't you eliminate ailerons as well. In applying your logic, they too must be unnecessary as planes for years had been flying perfectly fine using wing warping"
Where the heck is your logic is making that statement? I NEVER said ailerons weren't needed nor did I even hint at such a statement so don't try to put words into a post I did not write. You and a couple others have said you wouldn't fly a floatplane without flaps and I was totally baffled at why you would make such a statement when there a planes that have been flying on floats without flaps for decades. Like I said earlier, "...granted flaps are another tool to help T/O and landings but they are far from neccessary". Neither one of my float equipted aircraft have flaps, there are times I wish they did have them, just for the extra lift they would provide when heavy or in a tight spot, but both planes have served me well within my mission parameters. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I see way too many times that someone reads something, takes it as a personal attack and then has to try to start an internet arguement. It was a statement of fact, nothing more. Many people read these forums, what happens when a neophyte reads the posts thinking he/she is flying an inherantly unsafe floatplane just because it does not have flaps? The majority of beginning float plane pilots probably learned on one these dreaded flapless aircraft. We can't steer away potential pilots from our ranks just because a plane is sans flaps.
Having said that, I am all for anything that can improve safety in flight. What I see in these exemptions is, what will happen next, the aircraft is soon going to be so heavy with safety features they might possibly have to put in a larger engine. Then what, another exemption for the extra weight of the larger engine for the reason of safety. It's a never ending battle for the designers.

[kayla95]

Not sure if this is the right place to talk about the icon a5 if not please advise where. Anyway hello from sydney australia did Google search for icon forum and found eaa forums so i joined all help and advice appreciated. I have been monitoring the a5 for sometime and about 3months ago got serious and was in email communication with icon about purchasing an a5 i was even offered to jump up the order list for a bigger deposit. All was going well and replys to emails were prompt and acurate however when i asked how the horizontal stabilizer/elevator was mounted after seeing the
stall test with the cessna on YouTube and the crazy flutter of elevator they stopped replying to emails. They have hit approx 1050 orders for this aircraft and i cannot find anywhere an explanation for the flutter why? it seems they dont care to much about the flutter i believe it will cause serious doubt over this aircraft and if it was my company product i would be worried about what people are thinking. Short term may not be a problem but material fatigue and failure takes time. Not sure what else to say.

[wantobe]

In addition to the Primary Category Aircraft which allows weight up to 2700 lb for land planes and 3375 lb for seaplanes, there is also a Very Light Aircraft (VLA) class which allows weight up to 1654lb (750kg). This is much closer to Icon's request of 1680lb.

In "AC 21.17-3: Type Certification of Very Light Airplanes under FAR §21.17(b)", issued Dec. 21st, 1992, FAA accepts VLA as a new class and Europe's certification standard of VLA. Following is from this AC:

1. Purpose. This advisory circular (AC) provides a means but not the only means for the type, production, and airworthiness certification of very light airplanes (VLA); and designates the "Joint Aviation Requirements for Very Light Aeroplanes" (JAR-VLA), issued April 26, 1990, by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe as an acceptable airworthiness criteria that provides an equivalent level of safety under FAR 21.17(b) for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certification of VLA as a special class of aircaft.

What happened to VLA class certification? Somehow nobody is talking about it. I would expect it to be the next level up from LSA, or is it more expensive to certificate a VLA than a Primary Category Aircraft?

[Flyfalcons]

After reading all these responses there is a couple of comments by a few posters that really iratated me...those guys that said flying on floats without flaps is crazy! Are you guys serious? How many Champs, Chiefs, Cubs, PA-12's, etc. are out there and are mounted on floats? They have been flying perfectly fine for 60-70 years off the lakes and rivers of the world without the need of flaps!!! Learn to fly the plane...granted flaps are another tool to help TO and landings but they are far from neccessary.
Ok, back to the original topic. Rant over.

That is true but look at the very high-lift airfoils of those planes versus more modern aircraft that are designed to do better than 70mph in cruise.

[Floatsflyer]

On a somewhat related note, as a result of my reading on here about all the headaches of small flying boats. I was thinking of working on a small flying boat design as my LSA project. The comments here make me want to think twice about that approach. If one were to design an amphibian with removable floats, does the MTOW stay at the higher amphibian limit or revert back the "land plane" limit when the floats are removed?

Conventional floats(straight or amphibious) with their attachment structures are already designed to be easily removable so standard gear can be placed and vice-versa. That is a somewhat expensive procedure to do on a annual or bi-annual basis. But to your question re LSA it would seem logical that MTOW would revert to whatever configuration one was in.

If you wish to simplify, then avoid the category of floatplanes and design a flying boat that must eliminate the annoyance factor that docking presents for them(this is the PO factor!). That would mean an ingenious in-cockpit electric folding wings design with a centralized "swim platform" for stability and floatation with no outer wing sponsons(like Icon). Or sponsons that retract to form an elongated wing/wing tip like the Mckinnon mods on Grumman Widgeon and Goose. Icon did one other really good thing for water operation for what is essentially a hybrid lower/shoulder wing. They beefed up the structure of the droop wing tips and also made them hydrofoil-like to provide safer high speed taxiing and manoeuvering on/through the water.

Now go ahead and design a much cheaper version than Icon(or the myriad of other LSA flying boats currently on the market). Oh, and one other thing: provide a reversible prop as standard equipment...now you have the perfect flying boat.

[steveinindy]

Logically, removable floats would drop you down to the landplane limit once removed, but retractablegear or floats would allow you to stay at the limit. It makes sense--there is a limit for landplanes, but since floats and their struts are heavier than wheels, and flying boat hulls heaveir than ordinary fuselages, the weight limit is more generous if you want to operate off water. If you remove the floats altogether, you don't need the more generous weight allowance.

Ah...now to figure out how to develop retractable floats that don't offset the benefits of a higher weight limit. Maybe just make them hollow or something and make them "retractable" only while the aircraft is on the ground (think an ground adjustable prop) so you wouldn't have to have a heavy retraction mechanism since we would have to have a retraction mechanism for the landing gear.