Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[zaitcev]

Now for other thoughts. What will happen to the performance of the A5 when the weight is increased over 17% with the same engine.

They have repeatedly stated that they'll continue to use Rotax 912, now in the iS guise. Unfortunately with 250 extra pounds they are even heavier than Cessna 150.

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.

Price is my concern also. What's more, if you spring a price increase upon position holders, many are going to drop, especially when they were made jittery by schedule slips. We saw it with Eclipse, and we saw it with Cessna 162. In case of Skycatcher, a 44% price increase caused a complete sales collapse, from which it hasn't recovered yet.

[Flyfalcons]

They have repeatedly stated that they'll continue to use Rotax 912, now in the iS guise. Unfortunately with 250 extra pounds they are even heavier than Cessna 150.

That kind of a power-weight ratio on a seaplane with a speed-optimized airfoil and no flaps......

[zaitcev]

That kind of a power-weight ratio on a seaplane with a speed-optimized airfoil and no flaps......

They came back to flaps on the cuffed wing, at least that was the word.

[kayla95]

hey popeye if the wings were folded on water with the weight transfer to the rear by the wings maybe the tail would sink possibly why there is no vids or photos ???

Now thats something I would love to see! Does anyone know where I can see a video of the A-5 with the wings folded under power on the water. Come to think of it, I don't think I have seen a picture with the wings folded just sitting in the water... can anybody point me in the right direction?

[kmhd1]

An interesting comment was posted today on the Icon A5 docket. It is apparently a copy of an email (though Wes Ryan is the person listed as the one who submitted the comment). The email was supposedly sent to Mr. Lawrence on 6/7/13 by Christopher “Doc” Bailey of Renegade Light Sport LLC. Mr. Bailey states he is an ASTM F37, F39, and F44 committee member.

While the letter is very slanted to the negative and has a number of grammatical errors in addition to discussing the "stall" resistance rather than the "spin" resistance; he does raise an interesting point regarding stall numbers. If the A5 is 250 pounds heavier, how will it meet the LSA standard for maximum stall speed?

In addition, the end of the letter leaves what could be an interesting clue as to what might be currently going on behind the scenes when he says, "So I stand behind your decision to get more data and to put it onto the ASTM committee to take a vote whether or not to allow just ICON to have the weight increase and take it off the back of the FAA light Plane directorate."

So, perhaps after more than a year of delay and dodging the request, is it now possible the answer will simply be pushed to someone else to deal with?

Full details can be found here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2012-0514-0130

[Flyfalcons]

He makes good points. If the Cessna 120/140, which fits the spirit of Sport Pilot very well and has been proven to be a safe airplane for many years, can't be given an excemption because it's a few pounds heavier than LSA standards, then why should anyone be allowed to deviate from the compliance standards?

[FloridaJohn]

While the letter is very slanted to the negative and has a number of grammatical errors in addition to discussing the "stall" resistance rather than the "spin" resistance; he does raise an interesting point regarding stall numbers.

Wow, that guy couldn't find anyone to proof read that before he sent it in?!

[kmhd1]

He makes good points. If the Cessna 120/140, which fits the spirit of Sport Pilot very well and has been proven to be a safe airplane for many years, can't be given an excemption because it's a few pounds heavier than LSA standards, then why should anyone be allowed to deviate from the compliance standards?

Yeah, he makes an interesting point on the stall speed, but I disagree with the Cessna 120/140 example. The Icon weight exemption request is about allowing a safety enhancing feature (spin resistance) on an LSA which is clearly a provision that the FAA has said they will consider within the category.

[kmhd1]

Wow, that guy couldn't find anyone to proof read that before he sent it in?!

I know, right!? For a guy who seems to have some clout, etc.... He really did himself a disservice with such a poorly written letter.

[Flyfalcons]

Yeah, he makes an interesting point on the stall speed, but I disagree with the Cessna 120/140 example. The Icon weight exemption request is about allowing a safety enhancing feature (spin resistance) on an LSA which is clearly a provision that the FAA has said they will consider within the category.

So full FAA certification isn't some testament to the safety of a design?