PDA

View Full Version : Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status



Pages : 1 [2]

Bill Berson
07-26-2013, 06:48 PM
Is that funny, haha, or funny in a strange sort of way?

If the LSA rules were created to eliminate weight exemptions then why did they specifically include language to the contrary?
I guess in a " I can't believe this weight creep sort of way." It originally started with the 495 pound exemption (FAR
103) that was issued for the two seat ultralight trainers. Now it's up to 1680.
Where does it stop?
It isn't funny to me. This weight creep has decimated the lighter classes that previously operated with few restrictions. As the weight creeps up, the rules get tougher. I wanted to participate with new entries in the light end. That seems impossible now.

What exemption language are you referring to?

p.s might not see your reply for a while, leaving for Oshkosh in a few hours.

Frank Giger
07-26-2013, 06:50 PM
If spin resistance is that important to the Icon folks, wouldn't it have been one of the fundamental design criteria from the start?

I wonder about a team that designs an entire aircraft - an amphib, which is a tall design order - and suddenly realize that it needs to be spin resistant.

If they didn't work out the aircraft's stall characteristics in the fundamental design what else is wrong with it that they haven't foreseen due to a lack of engineering? The Icon may turn out to be the Corvair of the skies: unsafe at any speed.

Floatsflyer
07-26-2013, 07:30 PM
If the LSA rules were created to eliminate weight exemptions then why did they specifically include language to the contrary?

Here, here, well said!

kmhd1
07-26-2013, 07:44 PM
I guess in a " I can't believe this weight creep sort of way." It originally started with the 495 pound exemption (FAR
103) that was issued for the two seat ultralight trainers. Now it's up to 1680.
Where does it stop?
It isn't funny to me. This weight creep has decimated the lighter classes that previously operated with few restrictions. As the weight creeps up, the rules get tougher. I wanted to participate with new entries in the light end. That seems impossible now.

What exemption language are you referring to?

p.s might not see your reply for a while, leaving for Oshkosh in a few hours.

Maybe its time to revise the Light Sport category and incorporate into the rules the newest innovations with a different weight limit.

I am referring to 14 CFR 11 in general though there are probably others more well versed in the minutiae of the FAA regulations that could provide other references as well.

Nice that you are able to attend Oshkosh! I went last year and it was so much fun. Unfortunately I can't make it this year. Looks like I will miss a ton of cool things too... Oh well, I guess that's the case every year.... ;)

Floatsflyer
07-26-2013, 07:49 PM
...namely using a safety feature as as excuse to get an exemption because the design itself has basic flaws that prevent it from meeting standards. Its usually the case when a design is too far along for a company to be able to afford doing a correct re-design.

Aaron, Icon is far and away the best financed, best capitalized private LSA company. They are also one of the best financed and capitalized general aircraft manufacturing companies, period(including all the Part 23's) and don't bust my nuts over the word manufacturing. Surely they could afford to do just about anything including a redesign if they chose. They chose to build the safest, intuitive and most fun aircraft possible and do so within the rules and regulations AS WRITTEN.

Floatsflyer
07-26-2013, 08:15 PM
To my knowledge no other aircraft weighing less than 1,680 pounds has met the spin resistant standards as currently written. If Icon has in fact done what they say they have done, why shouldn't they be allowed the exemption? Is spin resistance not a safety feature we want in our planes?

According to Icon the A5 and its spin resistant wing is the first aircraft ever ,regardless of weight or any or any other factors, to meet the standards set by the FAA for Part 23 spin resistance.

kmhd1
07-26-2013, 08:16 PM
Well, arguably it would. The additional weight without the proposed exemption puts it in the Standard Category, where many more safety standards are required, included a fairly rigorous flight testing program. No, spin resistance is not required in the Standard Category, but it isn't required in the LSA category, either.

Oops! You are right. I should have been more clear that I was referring specifically to spin resistance. As you said, its not required in the Standard Category so that is really my point. The A5 at the higher weight is accomplishing something from a safety perspective that other planes in that same weight category are not required to meet hence why the comparison to the Bell 429 example is an apples to oranges comparison.

kmhd1
07-26-2013, 08:27 PM
If spin resistance is that important to the Icon folks, wouldn't it have been one of the fundamental design criteria from the start?

That's a good question. At this rate, I wonder if we will ever get an answer. If the A5 does get into production, that and other questions like it should be answered in due time...

Bill Berson
07-26-2013, 08:28 PM
Maybe its time to revise the Light Sport category and incorporate into the rules the newest innovations with a different weight limit.
.

That is what I suggested. There should tiers for each weight category or complexity category. One size doesn't fit all.

Floatsflyer
07-26-2013, 09:07 PM
Maybe its time to revise the Light Sport category and incorporate into the rules the newest innovations with a different weight limit.

This may in fact be around the corner. Everything I've read on this subject strongly suggests that a review involving all stakeholders, specifically concerning weight limits, will be considered in the near future. Many manufacturers want weight increases to add structure for safety which they believe will in turn create the LSA that consumers will want to own and fly.

Eaglerhythm
07-26-2013, 11:20 PM
That is the core thing, why they put the current 1430 pound as a limit? Any solid proof shows 1430 reasonable? Compared with safety function, how important to stick on this limit?
Without certain safety functions, LSA can never be consumer product for majority part of the population.

Frank Giger
07-27-2013, 07:08 AM
You have to put limits somewhere or there aren't categories at all.

LSA weight limits are just fine for simple, light, two passenger aircraft with a low stall and low cruise speed operating environment, as has been demonstrated over and over again.

Raising the weight limit for ducks so that geese now fit in it does not make a swan a duck.

Using "safety" as a reason to disregard aircraft category limits due to poor design from the start speaks volumes to the integrity of the Icon team.

It's not like the didn't know the LSA rules before they began - to now say they can't safely design within those constraints isn't the FAA's problem; it's Icon's design team's engineering incompetence.

Floatsflyer
07-27-2013, 08:01 AM
Using "safety" as a reason to disregard aircraft category limits due to poor design from the start speaks volumes to the integrity of the Icon team.

It's not like the didn't know the LSA rules before they began - to now say they can't safely design within those constraints isn't the FAA's problem; it's Icon's design team's engineering incompetence.

Your opinions are nothing more than unproven and unsustantiated allegations. But you appear to have a lot of insider information on Icon's design team so please tell us some factual detail about their "poor design", "integrity" and "engineering incompetence."

rwanttaja
07-27-2013, 08:33 AM
Your opinions are nothing more than unproven and unsustantiated allegations. But you appear to have a lot of insider information on Icon's design team so please tell us some factual detail about their "poor design", "integrity" and "engineering incompetence."

Weight limit 1430 pounds + actual weight over 1600 pounds = Engineering incompetence.

EDIT:

Though to be charitable, this can be explained by Managerial Thrombosis * as well. It's possible the engineers were told the airplane MUST have this, and MUST have that, for marketing purposes. They may have told their bosses all along that the 1430-pound weight limit couldn't be met, with the design direction they were given. I've seen it happen in the space biz.

Ron Wanttaja

* Having a clot for a boss

rwanttaja
07-27-2013, 09:10 AM
Aaron, Icon is far and away the best financed, best capitalized private LSA company. They are also one of the best financed and capitalized general aircraft manufacturing companies, period(including all the Part 23's) and don't bust my nuts over the word manufacturing.

Sorry, Flo, but they're a "manufacturing company" when the production line is running. There's a bit too much Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch in claiming they're the best, right now....

Ron Wanttaja

Popeye
07-27-2013, 09:35 AM
You have to put limits somewhere or there aren't categories at all.

LSA weight limits are just fine for simple, light, two passenger aircraft with a low stall and low cruise speed operating environment, as has been demonstrated over and over again.

Raising the weight limit for ducks so that geese now fit in it does not make a swan a duck.

Using "safety" as a reason to disregard aircraft category limits due to poor design from the start speaks volumes to the integrity of the Icon team.

It's not like the didn't know the LSA rules before they began - to now say they can't safely design within those constraints isn't the FAA's problem; it's Icon's design team's engineering incompetence.

IMO, hands down the best comment on the entire thread! The A-5 doesn't look like a duck and doesn't quack one either, so what is it? Their one and only non conforming flying prototype is not even a LSA.



If spin resistance is that important to the Icon folks, wouldn't it have been one of the fundamental design criteria from the start?

I wonder about a team that designs an entire aircraft - an amphib, which is a tall design order - and suddenly realize that it needs to be spin resistant.

If they didn't work out the aircraft's stall characteristics in the fundamental design what else is wrong with it that they haven't foreseen due to a lack of engineering? The Icon may turn out to be the Corvair of the skies: unsafe at any speed.

You are right and to take it one step further, for a company who has done wonders in marketing their company how come spin resistance was only brought up 5-6 years into the project. According to some Icons spin resistance is the best thing ever invented, (hey, some people believe we faked the moon landings too, whats the joke "you cant fix stupid") but wouldn't you use that as a marketing tool from the start just like the push button folding wings?


That is what I suggested. There should tiers for each weight category or complexity category. One size doesn't fit all.

$5,000 that is what we will see in the Part 23 rewrite.


Sorry, Flo, but they're a "manufacturing company" when the production line is running. There's a bit too much Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch in claiming they're the best, right now....

Ron Wanttaja

Its the best cheese money can't buy!

Floatsflyer
07-27-2013, 10:00 AM
IMO, hands down the best comment on the entire thread!


Careful now, your standards are showing.

Floatsflyer
07-27-2013, 10:03 AM
Sorry, Flo, but they're a "manufacturing company" when the production line is runnin

I did say, "and don't bust my nuts over the word manufacturing"

rwanttaja
07-27-2013, 10:52 AM
I did say, "and don't bust my nuts over the word manufacturing"
Certainly. But when I don't want someone to bust my nuts, I don't take them out of the Planter's can, spread them on the counter, and hand hammers to passersby....

Ron Wanttaja

Popeye
07-27-2013, 11:01 AM
[QUOTE=Popeye;33092]Here is something I found interesting, I copied this from the FAAs official denial of Bells 429 weight exemption for an additional 500 lbs for safety equipment.
QUOTE]

For every denial, I'll raise you with 2 FAA approved weight increase exemption requests: :)

http://www.taturbo.com/gwipr.html

http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/FAA-approves-MD-Expolorer-902-maximum-weight-increase


Every request is decided on an individual basis determined by the supporting documentation. Your call.

Floats, the two examples you provided are not relevant to the 429s exemption. In your first example, the Turbo-normalized Bonanzas exemption is a STC that allows them to add more weight, staying within part 23, WITH OUT CROSSING THE PART 25 THRESHOLD, which is completely legal and should be.

The helicopter you mentioned is the same thing; it’s a part 27 bird and was granted a STC that kept it within part 27, once again WITH OUT CROSSING PART 29 THRESHOLD.


If they crossed these lines they have to comply with the entire regulation, you can’t be partially Part 23. Either you are or you are not. It’s not apples to oranges; it’s literally in black and white.


What Icon is trying to do is manufacture an aircraft at the above prescribed weight limit without having to adhere to any of the other regulations and bare the associated cost in said category, be it standard, primary, recreational, part 23 or part 25. Once you cross that line you have to play by a diffident and more expensive play-book. As the aircraft gets bigger it represent a greater threat to occupants of the aircraft, persons and property on the ground which requires a greater level of safety.

Personally, I like the fact that the 737 is manufactured to Part 25 standards and not manufactured under part 103, which there are zero rules regarding manufacturing of 103 aircraft, design regs yes, manufacturing regs no.

Popeye
07-27-2013, 11:32 AM
What design currently meets the spin resistance standards within the LSA category?

Every LSA who has achieved an SLSA ticket has had to adhere ASTM F2245, otherwise know as the Industry Consensus Standards. In F2245 Spins, Spinning and Spin Resistance is addressed; F2245-12-4.5.9 to be exact. 4.5.9.4 states "For those airplanes which the design is inherently spin resistance, such resistance must be proven by test and documented. If proven spin resistance, the aircraft must be placarded "no intention spins" but need not comply with 4.5.9.1-4.5.9.3."

Spin resistance was clearly addressed when 2245 was being composed, subsequently approved by ASTM and thusly accepted by the FAA. You don't design an aircraft and see what category it falls after its built. Every designer has the choice to design their aircraft to be spin resistance or not and the rules are clearly spelled out in ASTM F2245.

To answer your question, several LSAs meet the spin resistance requirements as spelled out under F2245, AirCoupe and Teckem (excuse the spelling)to name two but there are more out there.

Popeye
07-27-2013, 11:38 AM
For those going to Oshkosh you have to check out the museum, they just announced that they will be displaying the Beaver hat where the LSA weight limits were arbitrarily pulled from. Its a must see!

kmhd1
07-27-2013, 02:11 PM
Every LSA who has achieved an SLSA ticket has had to adhere ASTM F2245, otherwise know as the Industry Consensus Standards. In F2245 Spins, Spinning and Spin Resistance is addressed; F2245-12-4.5.9 to be exact. 4.5.9.4 states "For those airplanes which the design is inherently spin resistance, such resistance must be proven by test and documented. If proven spin resistance, the aircraft must be placarded "no intention spins" but need not comply with 4.5.9.1-4.5.9.3."

Spin resistance was clearly addressed when 2245 was being composed, subsequently approved by ASTM and thusly accepted by the FAA. You don't design an aircraft and see what category it falls after its built. Every designer has the choice to design their aircraft to be spin resistance or not and the rules are clearly spelled out in ASTM F2245.

To answer your question, several LSAs meet the spin resistance requirements as spelled out under F2245, AirCoupe and Teckem (excuse the spelling)to name two but there are more out there.

ASTM F2245-12-4.5.9.4 is not the same standards as described in FAR part 23 and which Icon is referring to in terms of the spin resistance it purportedly has achieved.

The context of this entire thread relates to the weight exemption request Icon filed in order that it may incorporate a spin-resistant airframe. The spin-resistance Icon says it has achieved relates to the standards as described and in accordance with the full envelope of the 14 CFR 23.221(a)(2) standards. If the A5 makes it to production with the weight exemption it will be the first to meet those high standards and do so as an LSA.

No current LSA meets those FAR part 23 spin-resistant standards.

kmhd1
07-27-2013, 02:30 PM
You have to put limits somewhere or there aren't categories at all.

LSA weight limits are just fine for simple, light, two passenger aircraft with a low stall and low cruise speed operating environment, as has been demonstrated over and over again.

Raising the weight limit for ducks so that geese now fit in it does not make a swan a duck.

Using "safety" as a reason to disregard aircraft category limits due to poor design from the start speaks volumes to the integrity of the Icon team.

It's not like the didn't know the LSA rules before they began - to now say they can't safely design within those constraints isn't the FAA's problem; it's Icon's design team's engineering incompetence.

Agreed that you have to put limits, but when the limits do not consider or foresee future safety innovations, then if nothing else the exemption process should be employed which is exactly what Icon is doing. In their original request they also mentioned that they would support "any future FAA rulemaking activity that would allow for S-LSA products with increased maximum takeoff weight to accommodate substantial safety improvements such as spin resistance".

Icon hasn't said they can't safely design within the current standards. They have said specifically that they can't incorporate a FAR part 23 compliant spin-resistant airframe within the current standards and would like the FAA to allow this innovation to be made available to pilots certified to fly LSA's.

kmhd1
07-27-2013, 02:48 PM
[QUOTE=Floatsflyer;33175]

Floats, the two examples you provided are not relevant to the 429s exemption. In your first example, the Turbo-normalized Bonanzas exemption is a STC that allows them to add more weight, staying within part 23, WITH OUT CROSSING THE PART 25 THRESHOLD, which is completely legal and should be.

The helicopter you mentioned is the same thing; it’s a part 27 bird and was granted a STC that kept it within part 27, once again WITH OUT CROSSING PART 29 THRESHOLD.


If they crossed these lines they have to comply with the entire regulation, you can’t be partially Part 23. Either you are or you are not. It’s not apples to oranges; it’s literally in black and white.


What Icon is trying to do is manufacture an aircraft at the above prescribed weight limit without having to adhere to any of the other regulations and bare the associated cost in said category, be it standard, primary, recreational, part 23 or part 25. Once you cross that line you have to play by a diffident and more expensive play-book. As the aircraft gets bigger it represent a greater threat to occupants of the aircraft, persons and property on the ground which requires a greater level of safety.

Personally, I like the fact that the 737 is manufactured to Part 25 standards and not manufactured under part 103, which there are zero rules regarding manufacturing of 103 aircraft, design regs yes, manufacturing regs no.

You make some good points here and its probably one of the reasons the FAA has taken so long to hand down a ruling on the weight exemption request.

However, correct me if I am wrong, but FAR part 23 spin-resistance is not a REQUIREMENT for planes that fall into that higher weight category.

So Icon is meeting a standard that planes in that higher weight category are NOT even REQUIRED to meet. If all planes in that higher weight category were required to meet the spin-resistance standard then I would agree they should have to meet all of the other requirements of that category as well.

Flyfalcons
07-27-2013, 03:12 PM
Icon hasn't said they can't safely design within the current standards. They have said specifically that they can't incorporate a FAR part 23 compliant spin-resistant airframe within the current standards and would like the FAA to allow this innovation to be made available to pilots certified to fly LSA's.

Of course they haven't said that but it's no secret that plane of theirs is heavy. It's pretty clear to most of us that they decided to go for an LSA loophole by claiming spin resistance and somehow "adding" 250 pounds of structure that most of us know couldn't be added to a bare airframe if you were pouring lead shot into every cavity of the structure. Come on, what seems more logical - that the company decided to go through a substantial redesign well into the already delayed development process for marketing, or that the plane is, and always has been, a brick and they need that 250 pounds of additional gross weight so they can fit more than one person and half tanks?

Frank Giger
07-27-2013, 03:17 PM
Your opinions are nothing more than unproven and unsustantiated allegations. But you appear to have a lot of insider information on Icon's design team so please tell us some factual detail about their "poor design", "integrity" and "engineering incompetence."

The Icon design is a failure producing bunch simply because they set out to make an LSA aircraft and by their own admission couldn't cut the technical mustard - and failed in the one area that should have been first in design, namely safety in flight characteristics.

They're off by 250 pounds, which is a lot in LSA aircraft!

I'm naturally going to infer that the pre-exemption request design must have been inherently unsafe or they wouldn't have had to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that's more than 250 pounds to the design.

Eaglerhythm
07-27-2013, 04:03 PM
Well, if the rumor about FAA is true, we will know the result within 24 hours. If FAA does give ICON weight exemption, which will be the first time for LSA, gotta be some reason for FAA to make the decision with confidence.

rwanttaja
07-27-2013, 04:15 PM
It's odd, but this is starting to look like a cross between Jim Bede and Paul Moller (e.g, Skycar).

Like Bede and the BD-5, Icon is trying to market the A5 as "everyone's airplane," though admittedly Bede was making that pitch to pilots. Many folks disparage the concept and process, but there is a hard core of true believers who claim that everything is fine, just fine. Really saw it in relation to the BD-12, with some decrying the "Naysayers" up until the prototype crashed on its first flight (CG too far aft, despite 200+ pounds of ballast in the nose).

The Moller similarity? The emphasis on getting people to invest money in the company.

Right now, I'm kinda hoping the FAA DOES approve Icon's waiver. For one thing, that should open the floodgates for other companies to request approval for "heavy" LSAs. And, of course, it'd be interesting to see if Icon can actually go into production, and whether Icon's market predictions come true.

Ron Wanttaja

Floatsflyer
07-27-2013, 04:15 PM
Well, if the rumor about FAA is true, we will know the result within 24 hours. If FAA does give ICON weight exemption, which will be the first time for LSA, gotta be some reason for FAA to make the decision with confidence.

It will be the first time over the maximum of 1430 pounds(seaplanes). It's not the first time exemptions have been approved and granted. Terrafugia and Maverick have already been granted weight exemptions for land planes in the past 2 years.

kmhd1
07-27-2013, 04:18 PM
Of course they haven't said that but it's no secret that plane of theirs is heavy. It's pretty clear to most of us that they decided to go for an LSA loophole by claiming spin resistance and somehow "adding" 250 pounds of structure that most of us know couldn't be added to a bare airframe if you were pouring lead shot into every cavity of the structure. Come on, what seems more logical - that the company decided to go through a substantial redesign well into the already delayed development process for marketing, or that the plane is, and always has been, a brick and they need that 250 pounds of additional gross weight so they can fit more than one person and half tanks?

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.

Would you still consider the A5 a brick if it were identical to it is now but introduced in the standard category?

Popeye
07-27-2013, 04:36 PM
Well, if the rumor about FAA is true, we will know the result within 24 hours. If FAA does give ICON weight exemption, which will be the first time for LSA, gotta be some reason for FAA to make the decision with confidence.

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!

Floatsflyer
07-27-2013, 05:03 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.

Popeye
07-27-2013, 05:16 PM
[QUOTE=kmhd1;33292]

You make some good points here and its probably one of the reasons the FAA has taken so long to hand down a ruling on the weight exemption request.

However, correct me if I am wrong, but FAR part 23 spin-resistance is not a REQUIREMENT for planes that fall into that higher weight category.

So Icon is meeting a standard that planes in that higher weight category are NOT even REQUIRED to meet. If all planes in that higher weight category were required to meet the spin-resistance standard then I would agree they should have to meet all of the other requirements of that category as well.

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?

kmhd1
07-27-2013, 05:29 PM
[QUOTE=kmhd1;33292]

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.

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... ;)

Popeye
07-27-2013, 06:35 PM
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... ;)

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.

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.

Popeye
07-27-2013, 06:47 PM
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.

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.http://eaaforums.org/images/icons/wink.gif

Floatsflyer
07-27-2013, 07:10 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.


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.

Flyfalcons
07-27-2013, 07:19 PM
Would you still consider the A5 a brick if it were identical to it is now but introduced in the standard category?

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.

kmhd1
07-27-2013, 07:25 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.

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.

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.

kmhd1
07-27-2013, 07:32 PM
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.

Is that even a possibility? Can a denied weight exemption request be appealed?

Floatsflyer
07-27-2013, 08:15 PM
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.


First of all, Popeye is only partially correct about Ercoupes--only certain models are LSA, the rest are not. Here's the list of all FAA approved SLSA legacy aircraft:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/ExistingModels.pdf


Secondly, stop being apologetic about the knowledge and factual content you have regarding Icon being the only aircraft in existance to meet FAA full envelope Part 23 spin resistance standards. I've already addressed this fact numerous times here. Popeye's gobblygook has you second guessing yourself. Stop at once!!! He can continue to be either in denial or delusional. :confused: Once again, here it is:

http://www.iconaircraft.com/dl/news/pdf/20120216_ICON_A5_Achieves_Historic_Safety_Mileston e.pdf

Popeye
07-27-2013, 08:38 PM
First of all, Popeye is only partially correct about Ercoupes--only certain models are LSA, the rest are not. Here's the list of all FAA approved SLSA legacy aircraft:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/ExistingModels.pdf


Secondly, stop being apologetic about the knowledge and factual content you have regarding Icon being the only aircraft in existance to meet FAA full envelope Part 23 spin resistance standards. I've already addressed this fact numerous times here. Popeye's gobblygook has you second guessing yourself. Stop at once!!! He can continue to be either in denial or delusional. :confused: Once again, here it is:

http://www.iconaircraft.com/dl/news/pdf/20120216_ICON_A5_Achieves_Historic_Safety_Mileston e.pdf

She might be old but she meets the Part 23 spin resistance standards. They just are not currently in production.

Your source is Icon??? Really, am laughing out loud. There is no way that could be bias.

Here is a story from Flying that completely discredits that press release.
Blowing Smoke on Certification Standards Companies shouldn't imply their airplanes meet Part 23 certification standards, unless they do.


http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/blowing-smoke-certification-standards (http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/blowing-smoke-certification-standards)

There only facts, they cant hurt you.

Floatsflyer
07-27-2013, 08:38 PM
Is that even a possibility? Can a denied weight exemption request be appealed?

YES, almost all government agency decisions are appealable. By numerous means including but not limited to: through state and federal legislatures, orders in council, by the agencie's own legislative authority and the courts system.

Eaglerhythm
07-27-2013, 08:47 PM
Cross the fingers, will know the result within 18 hours.

Popeye
07-27-2013, 08:55 PM
Cross the fingers, will know the result within 18 hours.

What are you talking about? Is there a scheduled press conference first thing Monday morning?

Eaglerhythm
07-27-2013, 09:03 PM
Someone said FAA is going to annouce the Weight exemption result the following week, positively.
I guess, or predict, lol, the result will be annouced tomorrow, first day of the week, positively.

Floatsflyer
07-27-2013, 09:04 PM
Your source is Icon??? Really, am laughing out loud. There is no way that could be bias.

You don't mean they're lying, do you? You don't mean they're not telling the truth, do you? You don't mean they would go to such lengths and expense just to generate a hoax, do you? You believe your god, I'll believe mine(she's a good one).

Aaron Novak
07-27-2013, 09:41 PM
You don't mean they're lying, do you? You don't mean they're not telling the truth, do you? You don't mean they would go to such lengths and expense just to generate a hoax, do you? You believe your god, I'll believe mine(she's a good one).

Since when would this be new? All companies lie, especially their marketing departments.

Popeye
07-27-2013, 09:51 PM
You don't mean they're lying, do you? You don't mean they're not telling the truth, do you? You don't mean they would go to such lengths and expense just to generate a hoax, do you? You believe your god, I'll believe mine(she's a good one).

As Rutan said "its been seven years and they haven't produced any airplanes"

Eaglerhythm
07-27-2013, 11:12 PM
You are definitely right, ICONˊs competitors lie too. Would like to see how this game plays after ICON join the market.

Eaglerhythm
07-28-2013, 06:35 AM
What are you talking about? Is there a scheduled press conference first thing Monday morning?

Dreaming too much, today is Sunday, my prediction add 1 day to Monday Afternoon.

Floatsflyer
07-28-2013, 07:16 AM
As Rutan said "its been seven years and they haven't produced any airplanes"

Actually, it's only been 5 years since the plane/company was introduced as a start-up. And besides, Rutan may still have an axe to grind, he's still pissed-off because some of his most senior aerospace engineers left Scaled Composites to found Icon.

Flyfalcons
07-28-2013, 07:50 AM
It probably comes from the fact that Rutan's company produces results while Icon produces brochures. Or to put it another way, it took Scaled three years to develop their space program and Icon still hasn't completed an LSA in five.

Popeye
07-28-2013, 08:00 AM
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.

Kmh, I found this concerning Cirrus ELOS and thought you would be interested. I do not know who, why, what, or when but I do know its in the Regs and thats why manufacturers choose this route.



"Based on this research and conclusions, the FAA supported Cirrus’ alternative wing design approach with the understanding that overall safety levels would be improved through the prevention of departures, by way of improved low-speed characteristics and departure resistance, than by meeting the combined requirements of 23.201 and 23.221."


Thats why I find this whole weight exemption senseless. Icon is not a part 23 aircraft, but it is hoping to get a exemption to add weight because they claim it meets a rule in a category that requires higher safety standards. Not just spin resistance but full part 23. The aircraft in Part 23 do not use the rule because there are safer and more cost effective methods to achieve the mission specifications. These are the FAAs own words.

Here is the link to what I copied, http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/3-105960-Cirrusstall-spinreport.pdf

Sure, if they want to go that route purely for weight/marketing its there prerogative, but it is a substandard regulations that the FAA has provided better alternatives for.

Another aircraft that can meet 23.201-23.221 is the Antonov An-2 but because is not made in the USA some how means it cant fly within the parameters set forth by 23.201 and 23.221. So apparently until there is a rule made, its impossible to accomplish.

Popeye
07-28-2013, 08:08 AM
Actually, it's only been 5 years since the plane/company was introduced as a start-up. And besides, Rutan may still have an axe to grind, he's still pissed-off because some of his most senior aerospace engineers left Scaled Composites to found Icon.

Why would he, he sold out to Northrup Grumman and retired and thats when people started jumping ship. More likely he is pissed that they have used his accomplishments/name to promote themselves. and does not want to be associated with them at all.

Flyfalcons
07-28-2013, 08:16 AM
I just noticed the "estimated" price is up to 189 grand now.

Popeye
07-28-2013, 08:19 AM
Icon was started mid 2005.

Popeye
07-28-2013, 08:21 AM
I just noticed the "estimated" price is up to 189 grand now.

NO way, please share with the class where you saw that!

I will buy you a beer for that one.

Flyfalcons
07-28-2013, 08:55 AM
http://www.iconaircraft.com/buy-your-icon.html

Alaskan Amber or Fat Tire, please.

Popeye
07-28-2013, 09:53 AM
http://www.iconaircraft.com/buy-your-icon.html

Alaskan Amber or Fat Tire, please.

You got it! Thanks, once again Icon has managed to bewilder me. I knew the price was going up but the day before the show?

kmhd1
07-28-2013, 12:13 PM
You got it! Thanks, once again Icon has managed to bewilder me. I knew the price was going up but the day before the show?

Agreed! I had seen recent posts from Icon on Facebook putting the price closer to $170K which falls in line with CPI-W rates, but $189K is ridiculous!!

They state they are using CPI-W as of July 1st 2013. I checked a few CPI-W calculators on the Internet and using a starting amount of $139,000 and generously picking 2005 and not 2008 as the starting year the CPI-W would put the current price of the A5 at close to $165,000 (again using the $139K as the basis starting amount).

I guess with the extra weight comes an extra fat price as well....

kmhd1
07-28-2013, 12:27 PM
Popeye, thanks for the information and the extra research regarding the Part 23 stuff you posted earlier today.

Eaglerhythm
07-28-2013, 01:05 PM
Agreed! I had seen recent posts from Icon on Facebook putting the price closer to $170K which falls in line with CPI-W rates, but $189K is ridiculous!!

They state they are using CPI-W as of July 1st 2013. I checked a few CPI-W calculators on the Internet and using a starting amount of $139,000 and generously picking 2005 and not 2008 as the starting year the CPI-W would put the current price of the A5 at close to $165,000 (again using the $139K as the basis starting amount).

I guess with the extra weight comes an extra fat price as well....

Well, I think they told people the price would be somewhere 180,000usd last year at EAA.

rwanttaja
07-28-2013, 02:44 PM
Agreed! I had seen recent posts from Icon on Facebook putting the price closer to $170K which falls in line with CPI-W rates, but $189K is ridiculous!!.
$60,000 more than a Sea Rey, weighs 250 pounds more while flying on the same engine. But then, it has a power wing fold and extra flashy lights.

Ron Wanttaja

Frank Giger
07-28-2013, 02:52 PM
And cup holders. Can't forget the cup holders.

;)

kmhd1
07-28-2013, 03:06 PM
$60,000 more than a Sea Rey, weighs 250 pounds more while flying on the same engine. But then, it has a power wing fold and extra flashy lights.

Ron Wanttaja


And cup holders. Can't forget the cup holders.

;)
Or that new Sonex mini jet, the subSonex, that's about the same price ($125,000).... plus the wings are removable... no cup holders though. :)

Bill
07-28-2013, 03:12 PM
Or that new Sonex mini jet, the subSonex, that's about the same price ($125,000).... plus the wings are removable... no cup holders though. :)

You'll be too busy having fun in a SubSonex to need cup holders!

kmhd1
07-28-2013, 03:13 PM
Well, I think they told people the price would be somewhere 180,000usd last year at EAA.

I was at EAA Airventure last year and spoke to the Icon folks at length. They were still quoting the $139,000 plus CPI price which one of them told me would be in the $160K to $170K range.

Oh well, not like I could have afforded one even at the $139K price anyway....

rwanttaja
07-28-2013, 03:13 PM
Or that new Sonex mini jet, the subSonex, that's about the same price ($125,000).... plus the wings are removable... no cup holders though. :)
It's got cup holders...you just don't recognize them, since they're oriented horizontally 'cause the SubSonex is so fast....3136

Ron Wanttaja

kmhd1
07-28-2013, 03:19 PM
You'll be too busy having fun in a SubSonex to need cup holders!

hmmm.... When you put it that way.... Just need to find that $10,000 deposit money first. Let me go check the couch, I think there might be some loose change in there I could scrape together. ;)

On a side note: Anyone have any experience with building a Sonex?

Popeye
07-28-2013, 07:22 PM
Dreaming too much, today is Sunday, my prediction add 1 day to Monday Afternoon.

I hate to say, but it but looks like the decision, scratch that, the announcement will not be made tomorrow.

Eaglerhythm
07-28-2013, 07:40 PM
well,will see, I guess before 4:00PM Monday tomorrow, we will either know the result, or wonˊt hear a result forever,lol.

Popeye
07-28-2013, 09:20 PM
well,will see, I guess before 4:00PM Monday tomorrow, we will either know the result, or wonˊt hear a result forever,lol.

Looks like your wish is coming true, you'll know by 11AM.

Eaglerhythm
07-29-2013, 01:12 AM
Looks like your wish is coming true, you'll know by 11AM.
well,look! You are the one who really knows the insight! I believe what you said,lol

Popeye
07-29-2013, 08:25 AM
well,look! You are the one who really knows the insight! I believe what you said,lol

Granted!

Eaglerhythm
07-29-2013, 08:39 AM
Granted!
Finally, fun time just get started. This new ICON fish is going to change the ecology of the GA pond, lol

kmhd1
07-29-2013, 12:29 PM
Granted!

Wow!

Full Press Release from Icon on the granted weight exemption:

FAA Recognizes ICON Aircraft’s Safety Achievements, Grants Spin-Resistance Weight Exemption

LOS ANGELES (29 July 2013)—The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued its decision to grant ICON Aircraft’s petition for exemption to allow an increased takeoff weight for ICON’s A5 amphibious Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) up to a maximum of 1680 lbs. The exemption would accommodate, among other safety features, a Spin-Resistant Airframe (SRA) which enables the A5 to better avoid loss-of-control scenarios due to stall/spins. The company announced in February of 2012 that the A5 had been successfully tested to and met the full FAA Part 23 standard for spin resistance. The FAA exemption will allow the A5 to become the first conventional production aircraft to meet this rigorous safety standard.

In its Grant of Exemption No. 10829 issued to ICON Aircraft Inc., the FAA stated, "The combined design features and SRA concepts incorporated into the ICON A5 design . . . are recognized by the FAA as significant safety enhancements . . ." The FAA went further to state: "The FAA determined that granting relief from the MTOW (Maximum Takeoff Weight) for LSA for this specific safety enhancement is in the public interest and is also consistent with the FAA’s goals of increasing safety for small planes."

"We’re excited the FAA has recognized the importance of this accomplishment to the future of aviation safety," said ICON Aircraft Founder and CEO Kirk Hawkins. "For decades now, statistics have shown that loss of control due to stall/spin situations is the leading cause of pilot-related fatal accidents in General Aviation. ICON spent an extraordinary amount of time and resources going well beyond the call of duty to achieve this important safety milestone."

The FAA’s decision enables ICON to continue with A5 manufacturing, currently scheduled for first production aircraft in spring 2014. The FAA’s published guidance allows up to 120 days to issue a decision on any exemption request; however, ICON’s exemption request was not approved until 14 months after it was filed in May of 2012. Faced with the delay, ICON was forced to move forward with an interim design weight that still guaranteed the safety benefits of a Spin-Resistant Airframe. As a result, the initial production A5 will have a max gross takeoff weight of 1510 lbs, an 80-pound increase over the standard 1430-pound amphibious LSA maximum. "We had to make some tough engineering decisions in order to keep the program moving forward given the FAA delay," said ICON VP of Engineering, Matthew Gionta. "But in the end, we got to a great place and are on the verge of delivering one of the safest, most user-friendly Light Sport Aircraft possible today."

In a speech titled "A New Look at Certification" delivered October 11, 2012, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta mapped out the FAA’s vision for the future of aircraft certification where regulations encourage innovation by being less prescriptive and where complexity and performance are used as aircraft criteria instead of weight and propulsion. "We applaud the FAA Administrator and his team for demonstrating truly outstanding thought leadership," said Hawkins. "This kind of progressive thinking unleashes innovation within aviation that will have a profoundly positive impact on increasing safety while simultaneously promoting a strong, growing industry for our economy."

kmhd1
07-29-2013, 12:50 PM
Anyone care to guess what exactly this means?

The FAA’s decision enables ICON to continue with A5 manufacturing, currently scheduled for first production aircraft in spring 2014. The FAA’s published guidance allows up to 120 days to issue a decision on any exemption request; however, ICON’s exemption request was not approved until 14 months after it was filed in May of 2012. Faced with the delay, ICON was forced to move forward with an interim design weight that still guaranteed the safety benefits of a Spin-Resistant Airframe. As a result, the initial production A5 will have a max gross takeoff weight of 1510 lbs, an 80-pound increase over the standard 1430-pound amphibious LSA maximum. "We had to make some tough engineering decisions in order to keep the program moving forward given the FAA delay," said ICON VP of Engineering, Matthew Gionta. "But in the end, we got to a great place and are on the verge of delivering one of the safest, most user-friendly Light Sport Aircraft possible today."

Flyfalcons
07-29-2013, 12:53 PM
Probably that the actual structure increase to meet spin resistance standards is about 80 pounds and not 250.

Eaglerhythm
07-29-2013, 01:09 PM
Probably that the actual structure increase to meet spin resistance standards is about 80 pounds and not 250.
You are right.Even if FAA would Deny the petition, ICON can still make A5 in the weight limit by giving up couple of none core functions. I believe so.

Eaglerhythm
07-29-2013, 01:12 PM
Those D round investors should be able to figure out the details during due diligence before putting in 60 Millions. To me, ICON team sounds like pretty professional on all of these things.

kmhd1
07-29-2013, 03:20 PM
Probably that the actual structure increase to meet spin resistance standards is about 80 pounds and not 250.

Makes sense. Although I hope this doesn't mean they pulled the cup holders out of this updated design...

Frank Giger
07-29-2013, 03:32 PM
...and the fact that the FAA made the process such a nail-biting PITA will discourage other manufacturers from going the same route.

Eaglerhythm
07-29-2013, 03:53 PM
...and the fact that the FAA made the process such a nail-biting PITA will discourage other manufacturers from going the same route.
Therefore, make this ICON weight exemption approval a lot more valuable. It has the potential to be another Tesla.

zaitcev
07-29-2013, 04:41 PM
The difference with Tesla is that you can already buy a better airplane that weighs less: a SeaRey LSA (even if we concede that second seller of SeaMax is just as bad as the first), while you cannot buy a better Tesla for 2/3 price.

Deafhawk
07-29-2013, 05:16 PM
I think Light Sport Aviation was stabbed through the heart today. It may not die right away but it can't survive. Everybody else played by the rules, now the rules don't mean anything. As I recall Cessna 150/152s are only about 100 pounds over the LSA limits, why not exempt all of them? Icon is way too top heavy to survive, they can't possibly absorb the overhead cost they have already incurred let alone the cost of capital. They don't set the market price, the market does and the market leader is SeaRey who is lean and viable, been around for a long time and will be around long after Icon is gone.

Flyfalcons
07-29-2013, 05:17 PM
Therefore, make this ICON weight exemption approval a lot more valuable. It has the potential to be another Tesla.

I'm not sure I understand the revolutionary aspect of the ICON. It's a two seat amphib that cruises at 100 knots and has an average at best power to weight ratio. It's also going to cost 200K. Aside from its looks I'm trying to figure out where the leap forward in aviation exists with this plane.

hydroguy2
07-29-2013, 06:59 PM
1500# with a Rotax....that thing is going to be a dog.

Flyfalcons
07-29-2013, 07:17 PM
1500# with a Rotax....that thing is going to be a dog.

1680.......

hydroguy2
07-29-2013, 07:24 PM
1680.......

oh thought I read 1510#. Well let's change that to.... it'll be a porky pig.

FloridaJohn
07-29-2013, 08:32 PM
Well, I have say that I am surprised by the announcement. Now it's up to the market forces to determine if this design will be a success.

kmhd1
07-29-2013, 08:32 PM
oh thought I read 1510#. Well let's change that to.... it'll be a porky pig.

hydroguy2, you are correct. Icon stated today that the production A5 will have an MTOW of 1510 pounds. What they requested and what the FAA approved allowed them to go up to 1680 but Icon says for this version they won't need the entire exemption amount.

zaitcev
07-29-2013, 08:34 PM
oh thought I read 1510#. Well let's change that to.... it'll be a porky pig.
You read correctly. While waiting for the exemption, Icon went through a drastic weight reduction program, in case. So, the lightiest production airplanes are going to be only 80 lbs overweight. However, the exemption is granted to the original request of 1680 lbs, which leaves Icon with a headroom.

kmhd1
07-29-2013, 08:37 PM
Well, I have say that I am surprised by the announcement. Now it's up to the market forces to determine if this design will be a success.

Yeah, I was a bit surprised as well. What had me believing they might get it was the length of time and the types of questions the FAA was asking in their follow up additional information request back in April. It just seemed like if they had no intention of approving the exemption then why wait this long and ask for so much more information nearly a year after the request had been made.

kmhd1
07-29-2013, 08:40 PM
A couple of interesting articles posted today:

This one provides a few more tidbits than the standard press release did on the granted exemption:
http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/lsasport/faa-grants-icon-a5-weight-increase?cmpid=enews072913&spPodID=030&spMailingID=17747506&spUserID=NDg4MzU1MjY0ODkS1&spJobID=218844534&spReportId=MjE4ODQ0NTM0S0 (http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/lsasport/faa-grants-icon-a5-weight-increase?cmpid=enews072913&spPodID=030&spMailingID=17747506&spUserID=NDg4MzU1MjY0ODkS1&spJobID=218844534&spReportId=MjE4ODQ0NTM0S0)

Interesting opinion piece from Flying Magazines Robert Goyer:
http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/icon-gets-exemption-good-thing-or-favoritism?cmpid=enews072913&spPodID=030&spMailingID=17747506&spUserID=NDg4MzU1MjY0ODkS1&spJobID=218844534&spReportId=MjE4ODQ0NTM0S0 (http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/icon-gets-exemption-good-thing-or-favoritism?cmpid=enews072913&spPodID=030&spMailingID=17747506&spUserID=NDg4MzU1MjY0ODkS1&spJobID=218844534&spReportId=MjE4ODQ0NTM0S0)

kmhd1
07-29-2013, 09:06 PM
An interesting read on the thought process the FAA went through to arrive at its decision. The document attached in the following link for the A5 docket specifically addresses some of the concerns that have been raised in this discussion thread regarding competitive advantage, part 23 certification, removing other items to make the plane lighter, the folding wings, etc...

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2012-0514-0136 then click on the link at the site to view the attached pdf document.

Frank Giger
07-29-2013, 10:32 PM
Aside from its looks I'm trying to figure out where the leap forward in aviation exists with this plane.

AccuFlex (tm) SafeSecure (tm) cup holders.

And a "smokeless" ashtray.

rwanttaja
07-29-2013, 10:36 PM
An interesting read on the thought process the FAA went through to arrive at its decision. The document attached in the following link for the A5 docket specifically addresses some of the concerns that have been raised in this discussion thread regarding competitive advantage, part 23 certification, removing other items to make the plane lighter, the folding wings, etc...

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2012-0514-0136 then click on the link at the site to view the attached pdf document.
Thanks for the link!

Interesting... the exemption is good for only five years. I expect this gives the FAA the ability to refuse to renew it if the claimed benefits don't manifest themselves.

Ron Wanttaja

martymayes
07-30-2013, 08:22 AM
Interesting... the exemption is good for only five years. I expect this gives the FAA the ability to refuse to renew it if the claimed benefits don't manifest themselves.

So if 25% of the total accidents at the end of 5 yrs are stall/spin, would that indicate the weight exemption for "safety" is a failure?

rwanttaja
07-30-2013, 09:19 PM
So if 25% of the total accidents at the end of 5 yrs are stall/spin, would that indicate the weight exemption for "safety" is a failure?
Well, it *would* mean it's better than the Searey, a similar airplane.

I took a look at my database. In about 30% of Searey accidents from 1998 to 2011 (14 out of 44), the NTSB referenced either a stall or a lack of airspeed control. "Stall/Spin" was specifically stated in only two of the 14 cases, but most of the cases appeared to have occurred too low for rotation to start.

In my opinion, the claimed resistance to spinning itself will be of little consequence (few GA accidents occur high enough for a spin to establish itself), but IIRC the stall characteristics themselves are improved as well. If so, this will certainly help. The Searey has a relatively low rate of fatalities (lower than the Piper PA-28 series, in fact) and it will be interesting to compare to the Icon, with its claimed occupant-protection features.

Ron Wanttaja

Eaglerhythm
08-02-2013, 11:02 AM
Well, it *would* mean it's better than the Searey, a similar airplane.

I took a look at my database. In about 30% of Searey accidents from 1998 to 2011 (14 out of 44), the NTSB referenced either a stall or a lack of airspeed control. "Stall/Spin" was specifically stated in only two of the 14 cases, but most of the cases appeared to have occurred too low for rotation to start.

In my opinion, the claimed resistance to spinning itself will be of little consequence (few GA accidents occur high enough for a spin to establish itself), but IIRC the stall characteristics themselves are improved as well. If so, this will certainly help. The Searey has a relatively low rate of fatalities (lower than the Piper PA-28 series, in fact) and it will be interesting to compare to the Icon, with its claimed occupant-protection features.

Ron Wanttaja
Sounds like this topic to the end after ICON received it, lol

kmhd1
08-04-2013, 04:03 PM
3165

It really does have cup holders.... lol!

kmhd1
08-04-2013, 04:05 PM
Where's FloatsFlyer? I thought for sure you'd have posted something since the news broke of the weight exemption being granted given your support of the A5...

Frank Giger
08-04-2013, 07:23 PM
As much as I've ragged on the Icon, I do hope they're successful. Who doesn't think airplanes are just cool and want to see them doing what they do?

I do foresee a nice market of barely used Icons up for sale in short order, though. If we half the usual student pilot failure rate and then apply that to the one third of pre-orders to non-pilots....

And I hope like hell some of those non-pilots aren't thinking that aircraft appreciate and that it's an investment.

zaitcev
08-05-2013, 10:32 AM
I also think that Icon is a net positive. Forum posters seem to think that GA investment is a zero-sum game, whereas it's just NOT TRUE. So they keep talking how Icon sucked up the investment. Here's the thing: this investment would not go to other GA entrants.

The point about getting used Icons is also true, although it should be noted that they aren't going to be cheap. Look at prices of used Eclipse 500, they are shoulder to shoulder with King Airs.

kmhd1
08-05-2013, 12:52 PM
I do foresee a nice market of barely used Icons up for sale in short order, though. If we half the usual student pilot failure rate and then apply that to the one third of pre-orders to non-pilots....



Sign me up! I'll take 2.... ;)

Floatsflyer
08-05-2013, 01:09 PM
Where's FloatsFlyer? I thought for sure you'd have posted something since the news broke of the weight exemption being granted given your support of the A5...

I'm right here, thanks for thinking about me. I got home from Oshkosh about 5pm yesterday after a gorgeous flight of 4.7 hrs--blue skies and everything unlimited. So different from the weather we encountered flying out last Sunday.

Kmhd1, I'm not sure what I could add here except to say it feels soooo good to be spot on about the timing of the announcement.

For all the "doodads" and "gizmos" people on this thread(you know who you are), I spoke to an Icon VP who told me that, despite the 80 lbs. increase, I still can't get both retracts and electric in-cockpit folding wing. BUMMER...told him I don't want it then. First deliveries are expected next spring/summer after they complete 4 conformity aircraft for the FAA.

kmhd1
08-05-2013, 01:34 PM
I'm right here, thanks for thinking about me. I got home from Oshkosh about 5pm yesterday after a gorgeous flight of 4.7 hrs--blue skies and everything unlimited. So different from the weather we encountered flying out last Sunday.

Kmhd1, I'm not sure what I could add here except to say it feels soooo good to be spot on about the timing of the announcement.

For all the "doodads" and "gizmos" people on this thread(you know who you are), I spoke to an Icon VP who told me that, despite the 80 lbs. increase, I still can't get both retracts and electric in-cockpit folding wing. BUMMER...told him I don't want it then. First deliveries are expected next spring/summer after they complete 4 conformity aircraft for the FAA.

Nice! Welcome back. I was really bummed that I couldn't make it out there this year.

I heard it was unseasonably cool so that must have been a nice change from the usual heat.

What did you think of the 3D CAD treatment to the show plane?

That is dissappointing that you can't have BOTH retractable gear and electric folding wings. They have 170lbs of headroom - why not use it.... :-D

Did they have an updated mock up of the cockpit with the new AoA gauge incorporated into it?

Eaglerhythm
08-05-2013, 01:46 PM
I'm right here, thanks for thinking about me. I got home from Oshkosh about 5pm yesterday after a gorgeous flight of 4.7 hrs--blue skies and everything unlimited. So different from the weather we encountered flying out last Sunday.

Kmhd1, I'm not sure what I could add here except to say it feels soooo good to be spot on about the timing of the announcement.

For all the "doodads" and "gizmos" people on this thread(you know who you are), I spoke to an Icon VP who told me that, despite the 80 lbs. increase, I still can't get both retracts and electric in-cockpit folding wing. BUMMER...told him I don't want it then. First deliveries are expected next spring/summer after they complete 4 conformity aircraft for the FAA.
I also happened to talk several ICON's board members at EAA last Tuesday, looks like they are all excited. Maybe I can help you to get a test flight next summer once its production plane available:)

Flyfalcons
08-05-2013, 02:40 PM
That is dissappointing that you can't have BOTH retractable gear and electric folding wings. They have 170lbs of headroom - why not use it.... :-D


Would probably bump up on the max stall speed thing.

Floatsflyer
08-05-2013, 05:59 PM
Nice! Welcome back. I was really bummed that I couldn't make it out there this year.

I heard it was unseasonably cool so that must have been a nice change from the usual heat.

What did you think of the 3D CAD treatment to the show plane?

That is dissappointing that you can't have BOTH retractable gear and electric folding wings. They have 170lbs of headroom - why not use it.... :-D

Did they have an updated mock up of the cockpit with the new AoA gauge incorporated into it?


The weather was the best in years. Rain threatened one day for about an hour but it blew over with strong winds and no rainfall. None of the hot humid 110 degree days of the past. Just pleasant sunny or cloud cover days. I actually did something I've never done--wear a jacket for Weds. night airshow, it got a little cool at night. That night airshow was the best one by far since they started 2 years ago.

The all black CAD Icon looked good but they had it all blocked off with rope so couldn't see inside the cockpit. There were a few exhibitors showing AoA's for the first time and they all worked well but IMO, Icon's is the most intuitive.

I don't think you'll see the additional allowable 170 lbs used any time soon in a general across the board manner. Because of the long wait for the decision, I was told that Icon had to finalize the weight some time ago so they could move forward with further development. That weight is 1510 lbs. I will tell you this though: When I mentioned that I'm no longer interested in an A5 without power wing fold, I was strongly advised to email the VP, Sales and that "something" could be worked out. So, there must be others who have the same complaint and that "something" to me could only mean a custom built aircraft for those that want retracts and power wingfold.

Floatsflyer
08-05-2013, 06:20 PM
I also happened to talk several ICON's board members at EAA last Tuesday, looks like they are all excited. Maybe I can help you to get a test flight next summer once its production plane available:)

Do you have some sort of in or pull wth the BOD's? If you could actually help to arrange that, I'm all in. I did demo a SeaRey at the seaplane base and that was a fantastic experience. The SeaRey is a superior flying boat.

Eaglerhythm
08-06-2013, 11:13 AM
Do you have some sort of in or pull wth the BOD's? If you could actually help to arrange that, I'm all in. I did demo a SeaRey at the seaplane base and that was a fantastic experience. The SeaRey is a superior flying boat.
You bet, next year some time, they should treat you well since you have been such big a supporter.

kmhd1
08-06-2013, 06:28 PM
The weather was the best in years. Rain threatened one day for about an hour but it blew over with strong winds and no rainfall. None of the hot humid 110 degree days of the past. Just pleasant sunny or cloud cover days. I actually did something I've never done--wear a jacket for Weds. night airshow, it got a little cool at night. That night airshow was the best one by far since they started 2 years ago.

The all black CAD Icon looked good but they had it all blocked off with rope so couldn't see inside the cockpit. There were a few exhibitors showing AoA's for the first time and they all worked well but IMO, Icon's is the most intuitive.

I don't think you'll see the additional allowable 170 lbs used any time soon in a general across the board manner. Because of the long wait for the decision, I was told that Icon had to finalize the weight some time ago so they could move forward with further development. That weight is 1510 lbs. I will tell you this though: When I mentioned that I'm no longer interested in an A5 without power wing fold, I was strongly advised to email the VP, Sales and that "something" could be worked out. So, there must be others who have the same complaint and that "something" to me could only mean a custom built aircraft for those that want retracts and power wingfold.

Very interesting, Floatsflyer, and thanks for the reply. Not sure where you live but there are probably enough A5 supporters here to start a flying club. Would make the A5 down right affordable! :)

If it were to be a custom build to have both options on the A5, would it still be certified as an S-LSA in that scenario?

kmhd1
08-06-2013, 06:32 PM
Do you have some sort of in or pull wth the BOD's? If you could actually help to arrange that, I'm all in. I did demo a SeaRey at the seaplane base and that was a fantastic experience. The SeaRey is a superior flying boat.

I have heard quite a few good reports on the SeaRey. The flight school at my home airport is also a dealer for the SeaRey. It's certainly quite a bit cheaper than an A5....

kmhd1
08-06-2013, 06:40 PM
One other question for you Floatsflyer:

Did you happen to poke them for a bit more information on what they meant by the "tough decisions" they had to make which led them to the current 1,510lbs? The press release mentioned the following:

“We had to make some tough engineering decisions in order to keep the program moving forward given the FAA delay,” said ICON VP of Engineering, Matthew Gionta...

My question is what options were given up or what compromises were made to get to the 1,510 especially when they were starting with a possible and eventually approved weight of 1,680.

kmhd1
08-06-2013, 06:47 PM
Icon posted some additional photos from their Oshkosh setup on their Facebook page. Here's a shot of their production version for the main instrument cluster:

3170 MAIN INSTRUMENT CLUSTER
The A5’s interior is designed to provide the best possible user experience, and the instrument cluster is a central part of that. Optimized around VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flying, the cluster conveys a clear hierarchy of function with the most important information concentrated directly in front of the pilot. At the top of the cluster and closest to the pilot’s line of sight is the Angle of Attack (AoA) gauge, which provies a realtime picture of how the wing is flying. Its intuitive design immediately conveys how close the wing is to stalling, regardless of airspeed, weight, or maneuvering G’s. A sophisticated electrical circuit converts pressure readings into AoA indicator bands on the gauge, which is highlighted here.

Bill Berson
08-06-2013, 08:09 PM
Every fatal stall/spin crash that killed pilots I have personally known (at least four cases) occurred at full throttle. But the FAA did not even discuss the full power departure stall/spin subject.
In fact, FAR 23.201 (e) (ii) allows spin resistance testing with just 50 percent power.

In other words, the FAA spin resistance standard may not protect pilots that stall with full power, as most do, in my experience.

At the Icon booth I asked the spokesperson: "Was the spin resistance test at full power or 50 percent power"
No direct answer was provided. He said: " I don't have time or interest to read FAR 23 details"

So, I am still wondering if Icon (or any aircraft) has ever demonstrated spin resistance at full throttle. Without further information to the contrary, I assume spin resistance at full throttle is likely not possible.

martymayes
08-07-2013, 05:41 AM
My question is what options were given up or what compromises were made to get to the 1,510 especially when they were starting with a possible and eventually approved weight of 1,680.

I find the latter most interesting. The FAA has basically given the green light for an LSA to have a gross wt of 1680 lbs, which is more than a Cessna 152. A Cessna 152 can't be operated as an LSA because they are too heavy.

kmhd1
08-07-2013, 02:27 PM
I find the latter most interesting. The FAA has basically given the green light for an LSA to have a gross wt of 1680 lbs, which is more than a Cessna 152. A Cessna 152 can't be operated as an LSA because they are too heavy.

In looking at the FAA's response to the exemption and listening to some of the interviews they did with Earl Lawrence and Kirk Hawkins, etc... it would seem the response to that argument is basically the A5 has to meet all LSA standards except for the weight standard given that they were granted that particular exemption. Given that, would a Cessna 152 meet all LSA standards requirements (weight not withstanding)?

Floatsflyer
08-07-2013, 02:50 PM
If it were to be a custom build to have both options on the A5, would it still be certified as an S-LSA in that scenario?

That's a great question, one I asked myself as well. I really don't have a clue because Icon and the FAA have set up a very peculiar and perplexing situation. Here's what we do know: Icon has the right to go to 1680 lbs. But they've locked in at 1510. They will produce conformity aircraft at 1510 lbs to present to the FAA and pass the SLSA audit at that weight. All production aircraft will therefore be at 1510 lbs and be delivered to owners with a gross weight of 1510 lbs.

So if I'm correct about a custom built aircraft that can legally weigh more(and I'm only speculating here because this is all I can think of when someone tells me we'll do "something"), I'm suspecting that Icon would demand a liability waiver be signed as it's not to comformity but is still legal because of the granted exemption. So, here you have a confounding situation: Legal weight to 1680 vs. ASTM audit conformity to 1510. I'm going to write that email to the Sales VP and ask what they will do for someone who wants retracts and electric wingfold. I'll let y'all know what answer I get. Stay tuned.

kmhd1
08-07-2013, 02:58 PM
Thanks Floatsflyer. I look forward to hearing their response!

Floatsflyer
08-07-2013, 03:07 PM
I have heard quite a few good reports on the SeaRey. The flight school at my home airport is also a dealer for the SeaRey. It's certainly quite a bit cheaper than an A5....

I see you're on the east coast. Would that airport be in Maryland. I met a lady CFI who owns a flight school and a Searey dealership, I think her name was Helen. Very bright, knows everything about Seareys and she provided some very useful info and insider knowledge.

kmhd1
08-07-2013, 03:17 PM
Yep, that's correct. Helen was my primary flight instructor. Small world! :)

rwanttaja
08-07-2013, 04:04 PM
That's a great question, one I asked myself as well. I really don't have a clue because Icon and the FAA have set up a very peculiar and perplexing situation. Here's what we do know: Icon has the right to go to 1680 lbs. But they've locked in at 1510. They will produce conformity aircraft at 1510 lbs to present to the FAA and pass the SLSA audit at that weight. All production aircraft will therefore be at 1510 lbs and be delivered to owners with a gross weight of 1510 lbs.

So if I'm correct about a custom built aircraft that can legally weigh more(and I'm only speculating here because this is all I can think of when someone tells me we'll do "something"), I'm suspecting that Icon would demand a liability waiver be signed as it's not to comformity but is still legal because of the granted exemption. So, here you have a confounding situation: Legal weight to 1680 vs. ASTM audit conformity to 1510. I'm going to write that email to the Sales VP and ask what they will do for someone who wants retracts and electric wingfold. I'll let y'all know what answer I get. Stay tuned.
We've got quite a gray area here. As you say, Icon must ship airplanes out the door at the weight they've got their conformity aircraft at. Under the current rules, a person can buy an A5, then file the paperwork to convert it to Experimental LSA. They are then allowed to modify it as they wish, as long as it continues to meet the 14CFR Part 1 definition of a Light Sport Aircraft.

But... an Icon A5 *doesn't* meet the definition. The production airplanes have a waiver from the FAA, but does that waiver apply to Experimentals?

For an Experimental Amateur-Built, it wouldn't, since the manufacturer is the entity that built the airplane "for education or recreation." Any waiver awarded to a third party wouldn't matter.

I think Experimental LSAs still list the original manufacturer, so I would expect that the waiver will transfer. But is the ELSA approved to 1510 pounds...or 1680 pounds? The waiver itself is to 1680, but the conforming aircraft used to prove compliance was 1510.

I'm guessing the 1680 limit will be the limit (no precedent to hold an ELSA to the SLSA's original weight). But what will Icon do? Every A5 taken into ELSA is no longer under their control by the Federal Aviation Regulations, but they'll STILL be listed as the manufacturer. Which means they still get sued if the plane crashes.

Another problem might arise due to the naivete of the Icon buyers. Supposedly, many of those aren't pilots...and even fewer probably understand the ins and outs of the LSA licensing process. If a guy buys an Icon and adds an aftermarket powered wing fold and retracts, hopefully the installer (A&P or LSA Maintainer) will enter the appropriate paperwork to take it Experimental. But will be buyer understand the legal ramifications of switching from SLSA to ELSA? Will the additional gear compensate for the loss of value due to its ELSA vs. SLSA status?

This is going to be fun to watch....

Ron Wanttaja

Floatsflyer
08-07-2013, 06:20 PM
We've got quite a gray area here......This is going to be fun to watch....

Ron Wanttaja

You've added more to the conundrum. It's starting to look like a very dark grey. Geez, I thought this was all over and done with last Monday, the 29th(my birthday BTW). Icon is the most interesting company in the world!(a take on that beer commercial)

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

rwanttaja
08-07-2013, 07:40 PM
You've added more to the conundrum. It's starting to look like a very dark grey. Geez, I thought this was all over and done with last Monday, the 29th(my birthday BTW). Icon is the most interesting company in the world!(a take on that beer commercial)

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...
Well, it's not that dark...none of what I said affects Icon's ability to sell ready-to-fly SLSAs, which is their primary business.

The fringes may get a bit strange, though. The better the company does, the more it's in danger from the ELSA conversions. The jury ain't going to understand the difference. Might explain that snitch box Icon had wanted to include in each aircraft (flight recorder that they would retain ownership of).

The question now is: How many individually-owned Icon A5s will be at Oshkosh next year? Should we open a betting line?

Ron Wanttaja

Eaglerhythm
08-08-2013, 07:35 AM
Well, it's not that dark...none of what I said affects Icon's ability to sell ready-to-fly SLSAs, which is their primary business.

The fringes may get a bit strange, though. The better the company does, the more it's in danger from the ELSA conversions. The jury ain't going to understand the difference. Might explain that snitch box Icon had wanted to include in each aircraft (flight recorder that they would retain ownership of).

The question now is: How many individually-owned Icon A5s will be at Oshkosh next year? Should we open a betting line?

Ron Wanttaja

Wont be too many, in Q2, the first 4 production samples are for FAA testing.In Q3 the commercial delivery starts, but wont be too many,

Floatsflyer
08-08-2013, 04:13 PM
The question now is: How many individually-owned Icon A5s will be at Oshkosh next year? Should we open a betting line?

Ron Wanttaja

My crystal balling has batted 1000 so far. I said they'd get the exemption and I said back in April that the FAA and Icon would make a joint announcement to the hordes on the first day of Oshkosh.

There will be just one Icon A5 at Oshkosh 2014. It will be the first customer delivered model and the Keys will be handed over to the new owner with requisite Icon fanfare and flash on the very first day. Now here's the kicker. Icon has never met a marketing opportunity it didn't like. The keys handover will take place not at their exhibit but at Phillips 66 show centre so as to accomadate as many press and attendees as possible. See ya'll there!

Floatsflyer
08-20-2013, 12:08 PM
I will tell you this though: When I mentioned that I'm no longer interested in an A5 without power wing fold, I was strongly advised to email the VP, Sales and that "something" could be worked out. So, there must be others who have the same complaint and that "something" to me could only mean a custom built aircraft for those that want retracts and power wingfold.

The reply I received was disturbing and puzzling. The VP denied saying that "something could be worked out." Instead, he said there was a misunderstanding on my part as there is no plan at this time for auto-wing fold and retracts availability and if it is a must have for me, I should hold off at this point.

Clearly, he was covering his backside because at Oshkosh he obviously spoke without authorization and now regrets the conversation. I let him know with certainty that I was unhappy with his revisionist nonsense. Just call it one more customer disatisfaction experience with Icon. We move on.

kayla95
10-12-2013, 04:59 PM
Hi everyone have been away from watching whats happening at icon for approx 6months and just checked their site recently to find the price has risen from $139000 to $189000 which will increase higher with trailer and options where will the price stop ??? $250000 ??? My question is has a mass exodus started yet or are people still putting deposit money down on an unknown and yet produced aircraft???

Floatsflyer
10-12-2013, 07:52 PM
... price has risen from $139000 to $189000... My question is has a mass exodus started yet or are people still putting deposit money down on an unknown and yet produced aircraft??? The price increase occurred prior to Oshkosh and the exemption announcement. No surprise there or with the amount of increase plus CPI. Prior to first customer delivery next year with appropriate fanfare on the first day of Oshkosh, you can bet the farm that the price will rise again probably to $199K base. Haven't heard of any defections and they were definitely taking new promotional deposits of $2,000 this year.

kayla95
04-13-2014, 01:48 AM
The price increase occurred prior to Oshkosh and the exemption announcement. No surprise there or with the amount of increase plus CPI. Prior to first customer delivery next year with appropriate fanfare on the first day of Oshkosh, you can bet the farm that the price will rise again probably to $199K base. Haven't heard of any defections and they were definitely taking new promotional deposits of $2,000 this year.
Hey floats has everyone lost interest in this thread or is there another one somewhere its been a while but im back. With the FAA weight exemption they have made the cap-chute system mandatory what cost will this add$$$ what's your estimated base price now? Also is there any photos or videos on the A5 at Oshkosh anybody?