Its certainly not an unreasonable scenario what you are suggesting but I'm not an aeronautical engineer so I don't have the credentials or even the build experience that you do to really speculate how much additional weight a spin-resistant airframe would add to a design so I will have to defer to the experts for that.Originally Posted by Flyfalcons
Would you still consider the A5 a brick if it were identical to it is now but introduced in the standard category?
Last edited by kmhd1; 07-27-2013 at 04:27 PM.
The decision is very near, I give it a 75% chance it will occur at Oshkosh,90% it will happen in the next two weeks. As Alton said its a perfect platform to make a public announcement. But thats where we differ in trains of thought. I think the FAA is going to bring the hammer down and make it abundantly clear that the MGW is a line in the sand and do not waste their time thinking you can sweet talk your way around it, especially under the guise of safety.
We will know soon!
The FAA is a lot of things, but machiavellian is not one of them. If I'm getting you right, you think that if the request is denied, the FAA will make a bold, loud and humiliating proclamation. That's nonsense. There's no vendetta here, no hostility, it's not personal. It's just business. They'll respond like they always do, in writing with some reasons set out for the denial.
And that'll be it, until a possible appeal by Icon or they go combination primary and LSA.
[QUOTE=kmhd1;33292]True, Part 23 is not a requirement of Part 25. A aircraft certified under Part 25 must comply with Part 25 rules, An aircraft certified under part 23 must comply with Part 23 rules, an SLSA must compile with the SLSA rules and so on.
Actually, they are required to comply with the rule or an "equivalent level of safety" to said rule...so in a defacto state they all meet that tiny section that pertains to spins, spin recovery and spin recovery under part 23.
You can't pick and choose what rules you want to follow just because its better for you. This is like saying that I am building an LSA and its going to be the safest LSA on the market because we are building the windscreen to Part 25 standards so it is virtually impossible to have a fatal bird strike. O, BTW we just need a 300 pound exemption because its built to a higher standard. Who could deny it's for safety and its built to a "higher standard", one that even surpasses part 23.
Whats the address to the FAA I need to go ahead and send in that exemption request?
Last edited by Popeye; 07-27-2013 at 06:51 PM.
[QUOTE=Popeye;33302]What? I was following along with you until this part.
No current production aircraft currently meets the full envelope FAR part 23 spin-resistance standards.
The Ercoupe, before World War II, was developed to be less susceptible to spins (it even mechanically linked the rudder to the ailerons to prevent the pilot from actively controlling yaw). More recently the Cirrus SR20/SR22 and Cessna Corvalis use a cuffed wing design but neither actually meet all of the Part 23 spin-resistance standards. (source: Flying Magazine August 2013)
You might want to rethink sending that exemption request to the FAA...
Last edited by kmhd1; 07-27-2013 at 05:36 PM.
Thats word smithing, no current aircraft. Come on. The Ercoupe was certified before the FAA existed, still meets Part 23 spin resistance (even though it predates the rule), and is a LSA. But because it was design, built, and proven before the FAA was even a thought... somehow that discredits the facts, I call BS. If a plane meets the standards it meets the standards, period. It doesn't matter if shes has to use a walker to get around, If you can do it then you can do it. By law the Ercoupe has to have a placard saying that it is "inherently incapable of spins". Its simple to test, take the FARs find a Ercoupe and fly it as prescribed under part 23.
What? I was following along with you until this part.
No current production aircraft currently meets the full envelope FAR part 23 spin-resistance standards.
The Ercoupe, before World War II, was developed to be less susceptible to spins (it even mechanically linked the rudder to the ailerons to prevent the pilot from actively controlling yaw). More recently the Cirrus SR20/SR22 and Cessna Corvalis use a cuffed wing design but neither actually meet all of the Part 23 spin-resistance standards. (source: Flying Magazine August 2013)
You might want to rethink sending that exemption request to the FAA...
All part 23 aircraft that have earned a Type Certificate since the introduction of the Spin-resistance Standards have complied with the rule by the use of an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELS) thereby adhering to the rule. It is spelled out in the FARs.
Why would you want to put some thing on your aircraft that is going to degrade the level of performance, cost more, and means you have to deal with the FAA on more issues. The two aircraft you mentioned have ELS, and who do you think wrote those up? The company not the FAA. It's always easier and cheaper to follow your own rules if you have the choice.
It's all about the Benjamins.
Last edited by Popeye; 07-27-2013 at 06:56 PM.
That is the opposite view of Alton's prediction. I think you're right, no announcement just a letter sent.
But my point was I disagree with some people that believe that the FAA is rallying behind Icon and planning a united front and going to award them with the exemption at Oshkosh.
As for our government being not Machiavellian; I bet Bin Laden would disagree, its more of a selective process.
Last edited by Popeye; 07-27-2013 at 07:10 PM.
You're gettin' confused and not understandin' what I said. I agree with Alton's prediction and I said as much on this thread 2-3 months before he did--namely that a "yes" decision would be jointly made at Oshkosh, either in the Media Room or at Icon's exhibit in front of the throngs. If its a "no" decision, then it's just a standard letter sent from FAA to Icon-no muss, no fuss.
At the anticipated 1680 pounds and the Rotax engine, it's going to have a lower power-weight ratio than a 172 on floats, which is a bit of a dog off the water. It's also 250 pounds heavier at gross than its main competitor, the Sea Ray.
Ryan Winslow
EAA 525529
Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction
Very interesting. I did not know the Ercoupe was an LSA.
As for part 23 aircraft, I'm curious why they would delineate a very specific spin-resistant standard (full envelope 14 CFR 23.221(a)(2) and then allow every aircraft a way out of that standard with this ELS you are referring to.
Admittedly, I don't know much about part 23 type certified aircraft but I thought that particular standard (full envelope 14 CFR 23.221(a)(2) was optional and I am specifically referring to this spin-resistant standard and not the equivalent level of safety you mentioned.
In other words, the highlight to this whole drama I thought was that no aircraft had met the specific spin-resistant standard . Everything I have read says full envelope 14 CFR 23.221(a)(2) standards have not been met by any aircraft. If true, then Icon has truly brought a unique innovation to its design and done something no part 23 aircraft has done nor is required to do.
Last edited by kmhd1; 07-27-2013 at 07:33 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote