ICON given green light to begin deliveries

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Himat

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
2,868
Location
Norway
I bet they make more money on the licensing of those than they do the real airplanes.
With at least three different size R/C models on the market, until now it should be a safe bet.
I think the R/C models have proved quite popular and sold well.
 

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
6,054
Location
Australian
With at least three different size R/C models on the market, until now it should be a safe bet.
I think the R/C models have proved quite popular and sold well.
Ferrari make their big money out of merchandising, not the cars.
 

TinBender

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
218
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
From Exemption No. 10829:

The FAA also considered commenters’ assertions that the wing fold mechanism appears to be driven by marketing instead of safety. While the wing fold mechanism may improve the marketability of the A5, the FAA determined that requiring a commensurate reduction in the aircraft’s MTOW would have no appreciable positive or negative effect on level of safety afforded by this aircraft’s design and would not be in the public interest.
So a wing-fold mechanism's mass can be added to the allowable MTOW. When you're busting an arbitrary MTOW limit by a couple hundred pounds, who cares, right? Same goes for all the other things listed. We should be allowed to increase our MTOW by the weight of an AOA indicator, interior panels too, according to another paragraph.

I bet the MTOW of A5 could be easily legal LSA. Just reduce it to a single pilot. Make them play in the same sandbox. The regulators killed 'fat UL's. This is simply a 'fat LSA'.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
6,994
Location
Rocky Mountains
".....the FAA determined that requiring a commensurate reduction in the aircraft’s MTOW would have no appreciable positive or negative effect on level of safety afforded by this aircraft’s design and would not be in the public interest."

This is little more than an admission by the FAA that the weight limits that have been imposed on LSA and part 103 do not in fact reduce the risk to the general public. We have all known for a long time that limiting the kinetic energy of the plane, or vehicle, was little more than a back door to limit performance and a convenience for the FAA to do field inspections to enforce compliance. Planes don't crash into people or things, especially outside of the traffic pattern, at cruise speed very often.

Maybe to put a positive spin on this, as TinBender noted, we now have a precedent set to break the weight limit for any device not needed for flight that increases safety for the pilot and passengers?
 

RPM314

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
724
Location
NY, USA
I bet they make more money on the licensing of those than they do the real airplanes.
Yeah, all the icon models I've seen have been about 1.5 times as expensive as market trends and common sense indicate they should be, guess where all that money is going...
 

PTAirco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,522
Location
Corona CA
Wonder how much the recent injection of new investors money - what was it; $25 million? - went to "facilitate" that weight increase with the FAA. To push through such a fundamental diversion from the rules is highly suspect in my eyes. We usually need to fight decades to get the slightest concession past the FAA's obnoxiousness and this happens **** near overnight?? And yet we can't get a field approval from the local FSDO to put on different tires on a certified aircraft.:angry:
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
You can always get more done when you can sic expensive lawyers or pet Congress-critters on their bosses. That way you bypass all the gate-keepers and the preference of regulatory institutions to maintain the status quo or take the path of least resistance ("no").

Power in bureaucracies are leveraged from the top down, not from the bottom (user) up. That is why societies with ruling elites favor them.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,073
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
The petitioner states that due to the unique physical constraints that spin-resistancepresents, it cannot be included in the design under the MTOW as currently defined forSLSA products without compromising other safety features. To achieve their spin-resistant technology, ICON claims that their design requires a significantly increasedwing area. ICON asserts the increased wing area then in-turn requires increased tail sizefor stability, along with a corresponding increase in internal structure and a proportionalaccommodation for weight. ICON states further that the increased wing, tail, and specificspin-resistance elements also result in an increase in aerodynamic drag, which requiresincreased engine size and additional fuel to compensate.
Can someone explain the unique physical constraints that spin-resistance presents?

Thanks,


BJC
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,350
Location
Fresno, California


Can someone explain the unique physical constraints that spin-resistance presents?

Thanks,


BJC
I saw a lot of verbage about bigger sizes and weights. Perhaps redistribution solved that problem. Redistribution can solve lots of problems, and you don't have to modify the size and weight of all parts... just the wallet - shift a little excess mass from one to another.
 
2
Top