Page 31 of 39 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 384

Thread: Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

  1. #301
    You are definitely right, ICONˊs competitors lie too. Would like to see how this game plays after ICON join the market.

  2. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by Popeye View Post
    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.

  3. #303
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Popeye View Post
    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.

  4. #304
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    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.
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

  5. #305

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by kmhd1 View Post
    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/...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.

  6. #306

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Floatsflyer View Post
    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.

  7. #307
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    I just noticed the "estimated" price is up to 189 grand now.
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

  8. #308

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    24
    Icon was started mid 2005.

  9. #309

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
    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.

  10. #310
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    http://www.iconaircraft.com/buy-your-icon.html

    Alaskan Amber or Fat Tire, please.
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •