Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[Eaglerhythm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

IMO, hands down the best comment on the entire thread!

Careful now, your standards are showing.

[Floatsflyer]

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]

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]

[QUOTE=Floatsflyer;33175]

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/arti...eight-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.