Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[Flyfalcons]

There may not be much evidence to support the marketing effort but Icon is definitely marketing the A5 as a PWC with wings. Even though, modern looks aside, it does nothing that hasn't been done before, but you can certainly tell that Icon has probably spent just as much on marketing as it has on design and test.

[rwanttaja]

There may not be much evidence to support the marketing effort but Icon is definitely marketing the A5 as a PWC with wings. Even though, modern looks aside, it does nothing that hasn't been done before, but you can certainly tell that Icon has probably spent just as much on marketing as it has on design and test.

Agree with you there. Market RESEARCH, I don't know.

The customer base is daunting. Start with the number of boat owners (pretty big), weed it down by the number of persons interested in a personal watercraft (smaller), weed it down further by the number who would have ~$150,000 to spend on a personal watercraft, weed it down further by the number of folks interested a flying personal watercraft, weed it down even more by those who would accept a plane with a big "This aircraft does not meet the certification requirements of a standard certificated aircraft" placard.

Finally, weed out those for whom the modern looks and powered wing-fold of the Icon have more attraction than the Searey, which offers similar performance, at lower cost.

But, Icon seems to think there are enough people left over to give them a good batch of sales. If that's the case, fighting the LSA rules don't make a lot of sense: The vast majority of the potential buyers won't already have pilot's licenses, and won't understand the difference between a Sport License and a Private. Twenty hours more training required, when the guy's already considering spending $150K? Trivial. Why fight the LSA weight limits and delay getting it on the market?

Icon would have a big advantage if they offered an ab-initio pilot training program. "With just a 7% addition to the cost of your airplane, we'll give you all the instruction you require gain a license to fly your new Icon." If you're marketing to non-pilots, you're going to have to do something like that....

Ron Wanttaja

[FloridaJohn]

Can someone explain to this poor, knuckle-dragging EE what it is about the wing design that supposed to be safer than other aircraft? The "Design" section of the Icon web page doesn't seem to have any technical information.

I found this description on the Icon website using Google (it looks like it is in the "News" section of the website). It seems like the best description I could find:

About Spins and Spin Resistance

From that link:

"One of the key findings of the NASA studies was that a critical component of spin resistance is controlling the way the wing stalls. They concluded that having the stall initiate near the root of the wing (where it attaches to the fuselage) while the outboard panels of the wing continue to fly is ideal because it prevents the stall from ever fully developing or “breaking” because the outboard panels are still generating lift. Without a stall, a spin cannot initiate. This progressive stall is achieved with a wing cuff, or a discontinuity on the leading edge of the wing that separates the wing into two distinct parts. The outboard segments of cuffed wings have a different airfoil with a drooped leading edge, compared to the main wing, which causes that portion of the wing to stall later than the inboard part of the wing as angle of attack increases. Because the ailerons are located on the outboard panel which is still flying, roll control is preserved even after the inboard panel of the wing has stalled."

So, it looks to me like they have two (or possibly more) distinct airfoils in the wing. This allows the outer part of the wing, with the ailerons, to continue to fly (and have control) while the wing root starts to stall. I guess the "big breakthrough" is that they can completely prevent a spin with the changing airfoils.

The reality is that this is nothing new. Lots of planes have wing designs that allow the wing root to stall before the wing tips. I guess Icon just took it a little further than most do.

Now whether this actually prevents any accidents it's hard to say. I can put my 152 into a non-stalled condition that still results in a descent of over 1000 fpm (i.e. "mushing") that still could result in a crash if I happened to do it at a low altitude. So spin-proof does not necessarily mean safer. I guess one would have to fly an Icon A5 to really see what the implication of the wing design really is. As has been already said, you can hurt yourself pretty bad in a plane without ever entering a stall or spin.

[cluttonfred]

And what makes anyone think that a wing cuff designed in from the outset would carry a substantial weight penalty? Like I said, it's not the wing, it's the doodads that put it over the LSA seaplane weight limit.

[FloridaJohn]

And what makes anyone think that a wing cuff designed in from the outset would carry a substantial weight penalty? Like I said, it's not the wing, it's the doodads that put it over the LSA seaplane weight limit.

I totally agree, although if I were to guess, I would think Icon would say that since the new wing design required the re-introduction of flaps in the wing, and that is the weight "penalty" of the new wing design.

But like you said, I think Icon is using this as a ploy to get more weight allowance. Which is also why I say the FAA will see right through it and deny, just like they did to the Terrafugia when they requested a final weight above the seaplane LSA weight.

As much time as Icon has spent bringing this plane to production, they could have just gone ahead and certified via Part 23. Then they could get all the doo-dads they wanted, sell a few planes, and then strip it down for an LSA version. In all the online articles I have seen, Icon predicted a 2010 date for the first sale. They missed that by three years so far. Meanwhile, Van's has designed an E-LSA, a fly-away factory built LSA version, and has over 200 of them flying in customer's hands. So it can be done in that amount of time.

[rwanttaja]

And what makes anyone think that a wing cuff designed in from the outset would carry a substantial weight penalty? Like I said, it's not the wing, it's the doodads that put it over the LSA seaplane weight limit.

And when you look at the Icon web page, it says the main doodad (e.g., automatic wing folding) is an *option*. So it ain't the folding wing that puts it over LSA limit.

Ron Wanttaja

[FloridaJohn]

And when you look at the Icon web page, it says the main doodad (e.g., automatic wing folding) is an *option*. So it ain't the folding wing that puts it over LSA limit.

They also list a parachute, landing gear (or, more specifically, deletion of gear), night lighting, and attitude indicator as optional, too.

[cluttonfred]

Maybe Icon should take a look at alternative designs that do meet LSA requirements? Here's a clean, all-metal flying boat that's still well within LSA weight limits. It's a three-seater, not an amphibian, but they could trade that third seat for manually-retracting landing gear. With a light Rotax in place of the original engine, they could use the weight saved to add a canopy, and be good to go as an LSA. Not bad for 1921!



Dornier Libelle I

[zaitcev]

Don't even need to go as far as Dornier Libelle. SeaMax and SeaRey are already available as S-LSA. The latter in particular carries a long kitplane pedigree, while former flied all over the world for years (although last I checked it only scored 5 registrations in U.S.).

[Frank Giger]

They also list a parachute, landing gear (or, more specifically, deletion of gear), night lighting, and attitude indicator as optional, too.

They need to check out the limitations of a Sport Pilot. Night lighting? For an aircraft designed for the Sport Pilot which is limited to daytime VFR only?

Sounds like they have a serious issue with "feature creep."