Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[Flyfalcons]

What if a Private Pilot or higher wants to own and fly one?

[Markmn]

People want doodads and doodads sell airplanes. As I said earlier we need to look for ways to increase aviation participation.

You guys may be the ones that go to a car dealer and ask for a car without air conditioning and hand crank windows. Nothing wrong with that.
Its just not what most new buyers are looking for. If you cant afford one the only way you ever will is for someone else to buy them so you can buy a used one.

As far as certifying part 23 do you know how much that would add to the cost? Just think a new skyhawk costs $330000.00!!!! and its a 50 plus year old design!!!

Mark

[rwanttaja]

People want doodads and doodads sell airplanes. As I said earlier we need to look for ways to increase aviation participation.

You guys may be the ones that go to a car dealer and ask for a car without air conditioning and hand crank windows. Nothing wrong with that.
Its just not what most new buyers are looking for. If you cant afford one the only way you ever will is for someone else to buy them so you can buy a used one.

The problem is when the doodads get in the way of certification. Icon apparently has a plane with all these marketable doodads, and be unable to certify it because it's too heavy. You can't make any money on airplanes that can't fly, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig.

As far as certifying part 23 do you know how much that would add to the cost? Just think a new skyhawk costs $330000.00!!!! and its a 50 plus year old design!!!

The cost of Part 23 certification is less than a lot of folks think. The base price for the Cirrus SR20 is less than what you quote a new 172 runs for, and Cirrus had to certify the SR20 under modern Part 23 less than 20 years ago. For that matter, the Columbia 300 (which became the Cessna Corvallis) was certified about 15 years ago. Heck, they're even re-certifying the Skycatcher under Part 21.

Years ago, they asked Frank Christensen how high the paperwork was to certify the Husky. He indicated a stack about an inch and a half high...shocking folks who thought it was much more than this.

Part 23 is not unreasonable...it's just thorough. You're expected to prove the aircraft meets the requirements, not just nudge the local FAA in the ribs and wink. If you compare Part 23 and the LSA Consensus Standard side-by-side, you'd see a LOT of similarity. You've gotta do the same engineering, with the difference being that the FAA requires you to formally submit the engineering work for assessment.

If Icon had a Part-23 airplane ready *now* they'd be selling it, and having an income. Like Floridajohn said, they could do an initial version Part 23 and use the income to fund evolution into a Sport Pilot-eligible version. Are there THAT many boaters who can't pass a Class 3 medical?

I'm an engineer with a large Chicago-based aircraft manufacturer (though have never worked on the aircraft side). Saw a sign on the toolbox of a shop worker back when I started, 32 years ago, and it's stuck with me ever since:

"In the life of any project, it eventually becomes time to shoot the engineers and begin production."

Play with the gimcracks and doodads all you want, but eventually airplanes have to start coming out the factory door.

Ron Wanttaja

[cluttonfred]

I can't speak to the cost but I do think that the comparison between cars and airplanes, especially between cars and light sport aircraft, is flawed. Unlike passenger cars, aircraft, any aircraft, are critically concerned with weight. "Simplicate and Add Lightness" as Ed Heinemann used to say. Even the smallest passenger cars are required to include energy-absorbing structures and safety devices that even the most expensive aircraft don't have, never mind the luxury doodads. But that's because they can afford the extra weight--overload the family car and it will still get up the hill, just a bit slower, not hit those trees at the end of the runway.

LSA landplane is limited to 1,320 lbs, an LSA seaplane to 1,430 lbs. For comparison, certainly the smallest, probably the lightest and definitely one of the cheapest cars you can get in the USA is the two-seat Smart Pure Coupe with an empty weight of 1,808 lbs and a maximum gross vehicle weight of 2,315 lbs. That's with manual windows, no A/C or radio with 507 lb payload not including 8.7 gallons of fuel plus a reserve of 1.3 gallons. And that's in a car which is a niche market in the USA, too small, light and spartan for the average buyer.

Aircraft, any aircraft, cannot safely accommodate all the bells and whistles without driving up the weight, which requires a bigger engine, which drives up the weight some more, and so on. Off the top of my head, I don't even know of any four-seat production general aviation aircraft that offer something like A/C as standard, or power folding wings at all. What makes Icon think they can fit all that in when the LSA category of aircraft was designed to be light, slow, simple planes for the low-time pilot? If Icon can't figure that out, then they shouldn't be in the airplane business in the first place.

People want doodads and doodads sell airplanes. As I said earlier we need to look for ways to increase aviation participation.

You guys may be the ones that go to a car dealer and ask for a car without air conditioning and hand crank windows. Nothing wrong with that.
Its just not what most new buyers are looking for. If you cant afford one the only way you ever will is for someone else to buy them so you can buy a used one.

As far as certifying part 23 do you know how much that would add to the cost? Just think a new skyhawk costs $330000.00!!!! and its a 50 plus year old design!!!

Mark

[zaitcev]

The cost of Part 23 certification is less than a lot of folks think. The base price for the Cirrus SR20 is less than what you quote a new 172 runs for, and Cirrus had to certify the SR20 under modern Part 23 less than 20 years ago. For that matter, the Columbia 300 (which became the Cessna Corvallis) was certified about 15 years ago. Heck, they're even re-certifying the Skycatcher under Part 21.

Yeah, and now Skycatcher is officially the 2nd most expensive LSA on the market (behind Carbon Cub), while having about the worst payload and range. Lacks any kind of soundproofing, too, and I smacked my head good upon exposed aluminum in it. Way to go, Cessna. But it has a TSOed G1000, yay!

A regular LSA maker would not sell squat of those certified thingies if they did not already have a captive audience of Cessna Pilot Centers.

If Icon had a Part-23 airplane ready *now* they'd be selling it, and having an income. Like Floridajohn said, they could do an initial version Part 23 and use the income to fund evolution into a Sport Pilot-eligible version. Are there THAT many boaters who can't pass a Class 3 medical?

Please, Ron. The Part 23 to LSA never works, get real. The only airplane that managed that is Sky Arrow and how well that worked out? Magnaghi had to buy assets and restart production, and guess what: only LSA version survived. They are still certified in Europe, of course, and might have the old legal standing, but they do not sell Part 23 anymore. The only other example that's close is 7EC Champ, which is not LSA, of course.

If Icon started with Part 23, their income would not be sufficient to pay back their financing, and they would end in bankrupcy, same as Eclipse. You think that having some income is better than no income (which is what they have now), but it's not true. You only burn through the financing quicker.

The only sensible path is from kit to LSA, like SeaRey, RANS, Van's etc. Not in the opposite direction. Read Christiansen's book, it's the law of northeast migration.

P.S. They advertise a certified Sky Arrow 650TCNS on the website now. So yeah, someone got something useful out of the money that 3I's investors lost in bankrupcy. Still doesn't prove that it's a workable idea.

[Bill Berson]

I think it takes a few overweight designs before a new designer understands about building light.
Having someone with 30 or 40 years experience on the design team wouldn't hurt.

[Floatsflyer]

Had a conversation with an AME friend on the subject of LSA weight and durability. He provided this example: A 600Kg Skycather vs. a 757Kg 150/152 have close to the same weight for engine and fuel capacity and use almost the same traditional construction methods and materials. So where did the 157kg go?? It went to structure he said. Structure equates with durability/sturdiness which equates with safety and many other in-the-field operational considerations like after sale maintenance and repair costs, etc.


So while the LSA weight number mostly came from somewhere, perhaps it's not the correct number. Perhaps increasing the weight restriction for all allows the manufacturers to build the kind of aircraft that they would all like to build, all flight schools would like to have for training and you would want to own and fly.


If Icon does not receive the excemption, in my mind they will have 3 options:

-Build to current LSA certification standards

-Build the plane as it currently stands to FAR 21.24 Primary Category Type Certification as I mentioned before. This is the most viable direction and is the most cost effective. Primary costs close to about $1 million for approval(compared to Part 23 which can be from $25-50 million). Cessna has done this with the Skycatcher for sales purposes only outside the US.(LSA is not recognized in many countries).
http://www.faa-aircraft-certificatio...-category.html

-Manufacture both models so they don't lose their sport flying recreational consumer market. This could be the best business model.

All this could be moot when they receive the excemption. So, just for a moment, does anyone have any real insider info on the status of the excemption request?

[Frank Giger]

So while the LSA weight number mostly came from somewhere, perhaps it's not the correct number. Perhaps increasing the weight restriction for all allows the manufacturers to build the kind of aircraft that they would all like to build, all flight schools would like to have for training and you would want to own and fly.

But that defeats the basic premise that LSA rules were designed to spur development of a new class of aircraft....

We know that LSA compliant float planes can be built; there are numerous examples to draw from. That some manufacturers can't cut the mustard on the standards is no reason to change them.

[cluttonfred]

Floatsflyer, these numbers are really interesting to me, where did you get them? Are they based on the average cost to certify an aircraft in Part 23, and would it really be that expensive to certify to Part 23 an Aeronca Champ, for example, in 2013? It seems very strange that Part 23 vs. Primary would be a 25-50 times increase in cost for the same aircraft.

Also, if a primary category aircraft meets the LSA definition (like some of the old, light Aeroncas, Pipers, Ercoupes, etc.), wouldn't that be the best of both worlds--internationally recognized certification plus the ability to be flown by sport pilot certificate holders without a medical?

Cheers,

Matthew

Build the plane as it currently stands to FAR 21.24 Primary Category Type Certification as I mentioned before. This is the most viable direction and is the most cost effective. Primary costs close to about $1 million for approval(compared to Part 23 which can be from $25-50 million). Cessna has done this with the Skycatcher for sales purposes only outside the US.(LSA is not recognized in many countries).
http://www.faa-aircraft-certificatio...-category.html

[rwanttaja]

Had a conversation with an AME friend on the subject of LSA weight and durability. He provided this example: A 600Kg Skycather vs. a 757Kg 150/152 have close to the same weight for engine and fuel capacity and use almost the same traditional construction methods and materials. So where did the 157kg go?? It went to structure he said. Structure equates with durability/sturdiness which equates with safety and many other in-the-field operational considerations like after sale maintenance and repair costs, etc.

Hope you meant "A&P", not "AME" (Aviation Medical Examiner). :-)

I can believe it, though. First time I took a look at a Skycatcher, I was a bit dismayed by the metal work on the leading edge of the wing. Really a change from my old 150. Still, SOMETHING has to give, when you have to pack the same basic capability in a ~270-pounds lighter package.

Just seems weird that Icon missed the weight budget so bad that they have to ask for a waiver. They've got some Scaled Composites veterans in some high places, and what looks to be good engineering qualifications all around. Does make you wonder how much marketing is driving the engineering.... "You MUST include XXXX, YYYY, and ZZZZ in the design!" Seen that sort of thing before....

Ron Wanttaja