Page 14 of 39 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 384

Thread: Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

  1. #131

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by kayla95 View Post
    Yes airframes flex but the structure is aluminium the a5 is composite and my experience is it cracks and breaks with flex.
    Perhaps you could be more detailed about your experience with composite.

    Anything will break at some stress level, but generally a composite airplane ( from glider to 787) will take quite a bit of visible deflection without breaking.
    Might get some gel coat surface crazing, but that is not structural.

  2. #132
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    You beat me to it Bill but I was about to ask Kayla95 if she has ever seen how floppy/flexible the wings on gliders are?
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  3. #133

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    Three things almost too ugly to watch:

    Congress making laws.
    Sausage being made.
    The wings of a high performance glider flexing both on takeoff and landing as g load comes on and goes off.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 05-22-2013 at 10:07 AM.

  4. #134

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    61
    There is a new post today (5/22) on the docket for the exemption request. In a letter dated 5/9/13, Icon Aircraft responds to the FAA / DOT request for additional information. An interesting read for sure and in it there is a request from Icon that a final decision by the FAA be made by no later than 5/31:

    http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2012-0514-0125
    Last edited by kmhd1; 05-22-2013 at 06:51 PM.

  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    kmhd, thanks for continuing to post this info. While providing all the information requested by FAA in a quick and timely fashion, Icon has also certainly let the FAA know that they are quite displeased with the FAA's delays and lack of timeliness on decision making. I applaud Icon for being proactive and demonstrative in their request for a May 31 decision but I'm not inclined to believe that the FAA will comply.

  6. #136

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Floatsflyer View Post
    kmhd, thanks for continuing to post this info. While providing all the information requested by FAA in a quick and timely fashion, Icon has also certainly let the FAA know that they are quite displeased with the FAA's delays and lack of timeliness on decision making. I applaud Icon for being proactive and demonstrative in their request for a May 31 decision but I'm not inclined to believe that the FAA will comply.
    You can really feel the tension in Icon's response to the FAA. While it was well written and professional it most definitely had an edge to it. And so it should - Icon is at their mercy and all the FAA has done is delay, delay, delay...

    I don't discount the fact that the request is a big one and will set precedent but to take an entire year to basically say we can't decide and oh by the way we need more information is just absurd. And for a second, if we throw out all of the skeptics and conspiracy theorists, and agree that Icon is legitimately trying to be innovative, it really does put a significant burden on a company and really makes you wonder why anyone would attempt to bring new and disruptive technology and designs when you can basically expect to be ignored when you want to change the status quo.

    And I agree - no way the FAA will submit to any deadline given by Icon.

    At this point I will be very shocked if Icon receives a positive outcome on this. Do you still feel optimistic that they will get the exemption?

    The other interesting thing is that the FAA has had this latest response from Icon for 2 weeks now and given the upcoming holiday weekend its at least June before we probably hear any news... Who knows maybe they will surprise us!
    Last edited by kmhd1; 05-23-2013 at 07:44 PM.

  7. #137

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    61
    Flying magazine posted an article today and while its final sentence is now already outdated the rest of the piece I thought had an interesting take on the debate of whether the FAA should grant the request. One I don't recall seeing anywhere else. Thoughts?

    http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/fly-w...eight-increase

  8. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    I had not seen the Flying article. IMO, it is the most succinct, clear, thoughtful, to the point, factual summation of the entire issue devoid of rhetoric, bias and speculation. I have always shared it's conclusion for granting the exemption based on meeting the criteria/requirements for any newly enhanced safety factors. It is not precedent setting in any way because the built-in FAA mechanism to trigger excemption status has always been in place for anyone else to use. So yes, I still feel optimistic they'll be approved. But as the newlywed anxious groom said to his shy, inhibited, virgin bride, "But when?"
    Last edited by Floatsflyer; 05-24-2013 at 01:12 PM.

  9. #139

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    64
    really, i've always found the flex of an open class glider to be downright beautiful. The vide of the Eta doing a low pass on Youtube is breathtaking and when I was at Uvalde for the World Championships, nothing beat watching Concordia fly by with the wingtips waaaay higher than the top of the T Tail.

  10. #140

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Floatsflyer View Post
    I had not seen the Flying article. IMO, it is the most succinct, clear, thoughtful, to the point, factual summation of the entire issue devoid of rhetoric, bias and speculation. I have always shared it's conclusion for granting the exemption based on meeting the criteria/requirements for any newly enhanced safety factors. It is not precedent setting in any way because the built-in FAA mechanism to trigger excemption status has always been in place for anyone else to use. So yes, I still feel optimistic they'll be approved. But as the newlywed anxious groom said to his shy, inhibited, virgin bride, "But when?"
    All SLSA are required to meet spin criteria as stated in the ASTM standards. The ASTM standards allows the applicant the choice of proving the airplane can recover from a 1 turn spin or they can choose to design for spin resistance in which case no need to prove that the aircraft can recover from a spin at all.
    Why should they get an extra 250 pounds for compliance with the ASTM spin standards?

    This additional weight request based on safety is absurd. Every standard is based on safety.
    Should they get another 100 pounds if ADS-B is installed for safety? Or another 100 pounds for " good visibility".
    Where do you draw the line?

Posting Permissions

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