You mean you couldn't discern that from various interviews and promo videos?Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
Printable View
You mean you couldn't discern that from various interviews and promo videos?Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
Floatsflyer, Many years ago I had the same issue with the head of Cub Crafters. While at Oshkosh, I was asking about the new Carbon Cub (or Sport Cub) and was totally ingnored by the owner of the company. The way he treated me with total arrogance and disregard caused him to lose a sale. Yep, I bought something else the next day even though I felt what I really wanted was the CC. I wonder if these people with their pompous attitude realize how much money they are losing with their arrogant attitudes. I have the money to stillbuy a CC but I will not just due to the principle of that one short encounter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
Ok, back the the original topic.
Thanks for reply floats now i know why icon gave me the bird unless it involves money forget you.which is how a pyramid scam is built 1075 orders plus at $5000 with no deliverys they are probably driving around in the best cars with order money. But more serious my experience with composite materials such as carbon fibre,kevlar is that they dont like flexing movement as they crack and break now watch you tube again and even the camera mounted on the tail shakes crazy. The more i see the less i like and with no explanation from icon. Is the tail boom moving so many questions and without a $5000 deposit no answers
Thanks for interest but are you suggesting that manufacturers like Cessna piper beechcraft deliberately build movement in their tail assembly to warn of stall ? Not sure about that. I am more concerned that with flexing movement composite materials crack and break and with no response from icon when i asked about it. Just keep taking the money quick before they wakeup.
The tail shake is caused by air burbles. My Grob does the same thing. All airframes flex and move, but the smaller boom type aft fuselages are more flexible than a larger Cessna structure. And the combination of T- tail and small tailbooms will do this worse than a Cessna. ( Grob has a T- tail)
Also, I found the burble is much worse when I neglect to tape the wing/fuselage joint. Believe it or not, just a 1/16" gap will send these burbles to the tail and make it shake worse ( only at near stall) The Icon has wing fold, so it may have some wing gap in flight that creates these burbles at slow speed.
If you ever watch a KingAir 200 tail in a stall you'd never fly in one again. Same is true for a Tomahawk. I think tail buffeting is the least of I-Con's problems.
After watching and feeling the Tomahawk's (Traumahawk) tail that I was flying shaking when I stalled it, I decided that I didn't really want to fly a Tomahawk any more. I don't recall how many hours I have in a Tomahawk, but its enough. Must be one of the reasons why I don't see any Tomahawks flying today. Probably the only good thing about them was the cockpit visibility that let you see the tail whipping around in a stall.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
Another issue with the spin resistant video is the rudder authority. The deflection of the rudder as shown in the video is very small. I would guess about 15 degrees. I asked them about crosswind landing speed with the small deflection in Oshkosh, but did not get an answer. I guess many airplanes would be spin resistant with the combination of idle power and small rudder deflection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
The only info on icon i have is from the net are you saying there are other problems? Like what are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
Yes airframes flex but the structure is aluminium the a5 is composite and my experience is it cracks and breaks with flex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
Perhaps you could be more detailed about your experience with composite.Quote:
Originally Posted by kayla95
Anything will break at some stress level, but generally a composite airplane ( from glider to 787) will take quite a bit of visible deflection without breaking.
Might get some gel coat surface crazing, but that is not structural.
You beat me to it Bill but I was about to ask Kayla95 if she has ever seen how floppy/flexible the wings on gliders are?
Three things almost too ugly to watch:
Congress making laws.
Sausage being made.
The wings of a high performance glider flexing both on takeoff and landing as g load comes on and goes off.
There is a new post today (5/22) on the docket for the exemption request. In a letter dated 5/9/13, Icon Aircraft responds to the FAA / DOT request for additional information. An interesting read for sure and in it there is a request from Icon that a final decision by the FAA be made by no later than 5/31:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2012-0514-0125
kmhd, thanks for continuing to post this info. While providing all the information requested by FAA in a quick and timely fashion, Icon has also certainly let the FAA know that they are quite displeased with the FAA's delays and lack of timeliness on decision making. I applaud Icon for being proactive and demonstrative in their request for a May 31 decision but I'm not inclined to believe that the FAA will comply.
You can really feel the tension in Icon's response to the FAA. While it was well written and professional it most definitely had an edge to it. And so it should - Icon is at their mercy and all the FAA has done is delay, delay, delay...Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
I don't discount the fact that the request is a big one and will set precedent but to take an entire year to basically say we can't decide and oh by the way we need more information is just absurd. And for a second, if we throw out all of the skeptics and conspiracy theorists, and agree that Icon is legitimately trying to be innovative, it really does put a significant burden on a company and really makes you wonder why anyone would attempt to bring new and disruptive technology and designs when you can basically expect to be ignored when you want to change the status quo.
And I agree - no way the FAA will submit to any deadline given by Icon.
At this point I will be very shocked if Icon receives a positive outcome on this. Do you still feel optimistic that they will get the exemption?
The other interesting thing is that the FAA has had this latest response from Icon for 2 weeks now and given the upcoming holiday weekend its at least June before we probably hear any news... Who knows maybe they will surprise us! ;)
Flying magazine posted an article today and while its final sentence is now already outdated the rest of the piece I thought had an interesting take on the debate of whether the FAA should grant the request. One I don't recall seeing anywhere else. Thoughts?
http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/fly-w...eight-increase
I had not seen the Flying article. IMO, it is the most succinct, clear, thoughtful, to the point, factual summation of the entire issue devoid of rhetoric, bias and speculation. I have always shared it's conclusion for granting the exemption based on meeting the criteria/requirements for any newly enhanced safety factors. It is not precedent setting in any way because the built-in FAA mechanism to trigger excemption status has always been in place for anyone else to use. So yes, I still feel optimistic they'll be approved. But as the newlywed anxious groom said to his shy, inhibited, virgin bride, "But when?"
really, i've always found the flex of an open class glider to be downright beautiful. The vide of the Eta doing a low pass on Youtube is breathtaking and when I was at Uvalde for the World Championships, nothing beat watching Concordia fly by with the wingtips waaaay higher than the top of the T Tail.
All SLSA are required to meet spin criteria as stated in the ASTM standards. The ASTM standards allows the applicant the choice of proving the airplane can recover from a 1 turn spin or they can choose to design for spin resistance in which case no need to prove that the aircraft can recover from a spin at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
Why should they get an extra 250 pounds for compliance with the ASTM spin standards?
This additional weight request based on safety is absurd. Every standard is based on safety.
Should they get another 100 pounds if ADS-B is installed for safety? Or another 100 pounds for " good visibility".
Where do you draw the line?
If you had taken a few minutes to read the article or some of the former comments on this thread, then you would not have wasted your time making an uninformed irrelevant comment. It's about being compliant with PART 23 standards, not ASTM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
I am fully aware that they claim to be using Part 23 as a guideline ( makes sense, since ASTM doesn't have any guidelines for demonstrating spin resistance at this time, as far as I know. So I would expect any company that's chooses spin resistance would use FAR23.221Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
But FAR 23.221 requires the spin resistance demonstration at no less that 50% power. Has this been demonstrated to the FAA? ( In the Icon spin resistance video, the pilot said: " power at idle")
In any case, how can spin resistance require 250 pounds?
Well, I think some of the delay is due to Icon, Icon, Icon. The company gets an "D-" in strategic planning.Quote:
Originally Posted by kmhd1
If you go back to post#134, there's an attachment containing Icon's responses to the FAA list of questions. kmhd1 took the time and effort to search and post it for all those interested enough to read it. It should answer your question if you care to open and seek out the appropriate sections and appendixs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
That attachment would not open for me yesterday, but it did open today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
Reading it today, I found where Icon said the tested power level was at 75%. So yes, it would comply with the Spin resistant criteria of FAR23 (as I read it).
But that doesn't prove spin resistance at 100% power. No doubt some pilots will stall at full power, and it may or may not be recoverable. And since no production airplane has ever met this criteria ( according to Icon statement), there is no data to show that meeting the current FAR 23 "spin resistance" criteria will result in fewer spin accidents.
Moving on to my remaining unanswered question: is there a document somewhere on this forum that explains why a 250 pound exemption is needed to create spin resistance?
In the past, during creation of the LSA rules, the FAA has repeatedly said that they will NOT regulate by exemption. Therefor I think, if a safety issue is shown to be in need of some relief with a weight increase, Icon should petition for a LSA rule change that would apply to all, not just them.
That would allow for public comment about these complex issues.
Most of the dicussion have been on the spin resistance itself. Let me shelf this question for now and move on: Icon never explained or gave a calculation to show that 250 lb was the weight increase required to obtain the benefit of spin resistance. Proof this: it will take 250 lb, not 2.5 lb, or 25 lb, or 2500 lb for an LSA to be spin resistant. Strangely FAA did not ask this quantitative question either. The modification for spin resistance is mainly in the wing. I would estimate the full weight of a conventional wing to be 130 lb for an LSA (someone on this forum should be able to provide an exact example). The modification for spin resistance propably adds another 40 lb given the structural efficiency of composite wing. To ask for 250 lb is totally out of proportion.
I'm also scratching my head on how they needed 250 pounds of additional structure to make the plane spin resistant.
250 pounds does seem like a lot. Although, none of us are building this particular plane so its all speculation - even if an informed one given that some of the folks on here are building or have built their own plane - which I would love to do some day...Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyfalcons
I noticed your signature says you are building an RV-7 - sounds like a fun project! I wonder what other modifications you would have to make if suddenly your wings were 40 pounds heavier? If memory serves, in Icon's original documentation for the weight exemption request they discuss the domino effect of structural changes that are needed to support the spin resistant airframe and it included more than just the wings being heavier.
I don't disagree with you. Icon certainly made things far more challenging for themselves in that regard. In fact, I recall seeing an interview they did with Kirk Hawkins a while back where he talked about the decision to delay the production launch to incorporate the spin resistant design. At the time he figured it was going to extend things out 8 months just to nail down the design changes. However, I don't think he ever thought the FAA would take more than a year (and counting) to make a decision on the subsequent weight exemption request initiated by the spin resistant airframe changes they incorporated into their POC.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
Following is the paragraph in Icon's original petition explaining the weight increase:
While it is beyond the scope and intent of this document to fully explain a full FAR Part 23 spin-resistance solution, a simplified, layman’s explanation is that a large portion of the outer wing sections must be protected from ever stalling by, among other things, reducing maximum lift well below the wing’s capability. Given the maximum stall speed (45 knots) required by the LSA definition, this loss of maximum available lift requires significantly increased wing area. The increased wing area then in turn requires increased tail size for stability along with the corresponding increase in internal structure, as well as proportional accommodation factor weight – at a minimum. Further, the increased wing, tail, and specific spin-resistance elements also result in an increase in aerodynamic drag which requires increased engine size and additional fuel to compensate. The net result is that a Spin-Resistant Airframe requires increased vehicle weight over a similar S-LSA airplane that does not achieve spin resistance.
In my understanding, basically they are saying they need a bigger wing because the maximun lift cofficient is limited to prevent outer wing stall, and to keep the tail volumes constant for stability, now they need a bigger horizontal and a bigger vertical tail. The arguement on a bigger engine is not true since they use the Rotax 912s regardless of this spin-resistance feature.
There is no quantitative analysis in the petition. They intentionally avoided this discussion. The number, 250, came from nowhere. In fact, most of this increased weight are likely for the stuff like automatic wing folding and gear retraction.
The "additional fuel to compensate" bit is misleading as well. There's only additional fuel needed if you are (a) actually using a bigger engine than planned (the above mentioned use of the standard 912S covers that), and if you're trying to meet a specific range target using that bigger engine (of which the LSA standards do not specify a minimum range requirement for certification). So if Icon is fudging the facts about that, what else are they trying to BS the FAA with?
That is coincidentally the rough weight gain in metalizing the wings of a Cessna 140 and I don't think there's a gross weight increase included with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kmhd1
Why not? Has he never worked with the FAA before?Quote:
Originally Posted by kmhd1
ICON could have easily brought a product to market then worked on the "B" model and "C" model later. Hanging the future of the company on FAA approval of weight exemption was a dumb move.
Flaps are very useful in seaplane flying and I was one of those who thought Icon was making a mistake when they announced they were not going to use them on the A5. Rotating a seaplane on takeoff is more difficult than a landplane because increasing the pitch greatly increases the water drag on the float/hull. Flaps increase the angle of attack in the level attitude of a water takeoff.Quote:
Originally Posted by WWhunter
Now for other thoughts. What will happen to the performance of the A5 when the weight is increased over 17% with the same engine. I don't know how perky the plane was at 1430 lbs. but a 250 pound increase has got to hurt. I like the idea Cub Crafters had with the Carbon Cub. Get an engine with a lot of power for takeoff and climb but limit that power in time. Have a continuous power setting more in line with LSA needs. Wonder of any of the other LSA engine manufacturers are working on engines to do this?
Further, the promised price is nearly the same as other upscale LSA's such as the CTLS. The few flying boats there have been have typically cost upwards of 50% more than a similar land plane. I expect the actual price of the A5, if it ever is delivered, to be much more than predicted.
Yup, flaps increase lift for take off and provide for the quicker release of suction so to get up on the step quicker(aileron input can help as well).Quote:
Originally Posted by Neoflyer
Yup on the price. The current $139K is for a base model plus the CPI(consumer price index) since 2008. That CPI proviso plus additional development costs I suspect will net out to somewhere between $165-175K base for current deposit holders.
I agree with Bill. Understandably, everyone thinks that the A5 is a really exciting airplane and wants it to succeed. But emotion, politics, and money should not influence the certification process. Take a look at the Icon Directors. The Venture Capitalists that are funding this project will eventually take the company public. The VCs got involved to make money and if greasing the political skids is less expensive than a redesign then that is the path they will take. The Board has a number of politically connected heavy hitters capable of applying ample grease to the FAA skids. The FAA has indicated that they will NOT regulate by exemption. They should do just that. The FAA should follow it's long established rules and procedures and deny this weight waiver. As Bill indicated, if Icon feels that the LSA weight requirements need alteration then the correct procedure is to petition for a rule change. In that way a period of public comment would be required. The aviation community is full of smart, cautious, careful thinking, objective, responsible people whom I would guess would opt for an objective rules based certification process instead of a politically influenced process. The FAA should send the VCs back to the drawing board to put the A5 on a diet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
RVC, you're a newbe to this forum and this thread so I'll cut you some slack. You can't substitute histrionics and rehetoric for a lack of knowledge and factual content, most of which(factual content that is) is already contained in the thread. Better not to say anything at all, especially when unsubstantiated accusations can lead to libel:Quote:
Originally Posted by RVC
1. This may come as a shock, but emotion, politics and money influence everything.
2. GA needs VC's to grow the sector and keep it well capitalized. The VC's rarely give GA a glancing look and too many companies go down because they are not well funded to meet their goals and aspirations. VC's should be embraced, not vilified for what you perceive as involved in influence peddling.
3. It's really quite ironic that you think the VC's are greasing the skids and politically influencing the process. What evidence do you have to support these accusations? Do you just believe it to be so or do you just make this stuff up. It seems to me that they have no clout at all because the FAA took over a year just to reply to the request. With that kind of "greasing" and "influence" someone just wasted a lot of time and effort.
4. The FAA is playing by the rules. There's a built-in mechanism in the LSA rules to trigger exemption requests based on meeting criteria/requirements for newly enhanced safety features and innovations. That has always been in place for any LSA manufacturer to exploit. So therefore no petition for rule change is required. And as far as public comment is concerned, did you provide one when Icon submitted the request? Why not? Public comments were called for over a year ago and the FAA even extended the original comment period by over a month.
It's more than just flaps aiding getting on the step. Seaplanes have a reduced ability to rotate on takeoff. Flaps decrease the needed rotation to get airborne at a given speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
A new document was posted to the exemption docket for the Icon A5 today (6/4/13): http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2012-0514-0128
Anyone have a clue as to the purpose of this document - (other than some kind of house cleaning for full disclosure of all pertinent documents regarding this request)?
It appears to be a copy of a letter from the House Speaker from Ohio - John Boehner - dated July 25th 2012. In the letter he requests information on the A5 exemption request. This request was prompted by a letter from John Brown of Independant Aircraft who requested a congressional inquiry on the matter dated July 23rd 2012. There is also a copy of a Privacy Act release form.
Seems like old information. I wonder what the revelance is and why it is just now being made public?
This is very old news but interesting. Indepenant Aircraft has an LSA amphib in some sort of development and therefore could be considered an Icon competitor and therefore would try to negatively influence the FAA's decision. The letter's contents sound dire and apocolyptic--kind of humourous actually in a dark sort of way. This obviously went nowhere-"congressional inquiry", now that's laughable. Independent Aircraft, however, was successful in having the FAA comment period extended last year by about a month. A quick look at their site today shows the last entry in "news" as Nov. 2011 so they don't sound too active.