Possible LSA weight exemption on certian legacy aircraft?

[Jack Tyler]

There seems to be a great deal of interest - here and more generally - about the Icon design and prototypes. I'd suggest those of you interested in having an Icon-focused discussion start of a new thread with that in its subject line.

Just to wrap up a couple of thoughts in the preceeding page of postings:
1. Paul answered a Q about product development with this observation: "
IMHO, when a company is involved in IR&D (independent research and development), those efforts should be financed by the investors, not the customers." Googling a bit, I notice that Icon has conducted three rounds of investor financing - 2006, 2008 and 2011. The latter one was for $25 Million. Deposits that reserve a post-certification production aircraft are for $5,000 and Icon claims there are 1,000 of those. If that is true, it would seem that R&D (mostly 'D') financing is primarily being done by investors. What I can't tell is what Icon is doing with those ~$5M reservation funds.
2. Imagine being an investor in the 'A' round, 2006. The LSA 'industry' was almost brand new, there was much buzz about how the SP license and LSA inventory were about to change General Aviation, and there were few S-LSA a/c certified to the new ASTM standard...but most in the industry could seem them on the horizon. Heady times for a would-be investor looking to get in on the 'ground floor'. Now imagine being an investor in the 'C' round, 2011. Total S-LSA registrations over a 6 year period were estimated to be ~3,000. SP license issuances were averaging ~2,000/year in the later years, what is the equivalent of a third generation of LSA certified a/c are popping up, some of them offering lots of sizzle as well as steak. It's pretty easy for me to imagine that 2006 investor putting funds into the project, and I'll bet the the funds sought were the lowest of the three rounds. It's pretty hard for me to imagine that 2011 investor. There must be some interesting dynamics going on between the investors and the Icon principals.
3. Whether it's a good thing or not, the ASTM revision process is cumbersome and slow by definition. Icon planned to have production begun by 2011 in 2010. They currently promise production to begin in 2012 (with 4 months left to go before the Holiday period arrives). Any meaningful production schedule looks pretty murky to my eye.

[c162pilot]

According to AOPA on-line the FAA has delayed their response to Icon until the end of 2012

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2 ... ision.html

FAA delays Icon weight-increase decision

By Alton K. Marsh


Earl Lawrence, manager of the FAA’s Small Airplane Directorate that in turn falls under the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service, has told Icon Aircraft CEO and Founder Kirk Hawkins that a decision on his request for an exemption to the light sport aircraft weight limit must wait until the end of 2012. The weight limit is 1,320 pounds for land-based LSAs and 1,430 pounds for amphibious LSAs. Hawkins asked for an exemption in May to increase the higher limit of 1,430 pounds by another 250 pounds, to 1,680 pounds, for the Icon A5.

A decision had been due by early September.

In return, the FAA would be approving a spin resistant aircraft, Hawkins said in his request. The benefit was stated to be “safety” and “public interests.” A cuffed wing that is aerodynamically spin resistant accounts for the requested weight exemption.

Hawkins phrased the original exemption request as follows: “Therefore, within the spirit of the original rulemaking, which explicitly states the LSA weight limit was NOT intended to reduce safety, ICON seeks an exemption to allow gross weight to be increased from 1430 to 1680 lbs for the ICON A5 S-LSA amphibious aircraft. Additionally, since this technology is especially beneficial to sport pilots, ICON seeks that this exemption allow the increased gross-weight ICON A5 to be flown by sport pilots and maintained by LSA repairman like any other S-LSA. ICON believes this exemption unequivocally serves both safety and public interests and thereby represents the responsible regulatory decision.”

An important part of that request is the stipulation that the heavier vehicle can be flown by sport pilots. Manufacturers of the Maverick flying car in Florida recently won an exemption to operate their land vehicle, essentially a dune buggy flown beneath a powered parachute, at the amphibious weight of 1,430 pounds. That was to allow for the weight of the transmission needed for land travel. However, the FAA in approving the exemption stated that only private pilots could operate the Maverick at the higher weight. Beyond Roads, the company formed to develop the Maverick for jungle travel by missionaries, has asked the FAA to allow sport pilots to fly the Maverick at the higher weight of 1,430 pounds.

Lawrence said on Aug. 23 that the request seeks an exemption from FAR Parts 21, 61, and 43, “…which will require coordination with several offices within the Aircraft Certification Service and the Flight Standards Service.” The decision has the potential to establish precedence for future policy and rulemaking “…regarding safety innovation for all light-sport aircraft,” Lawrence said in a letter. He said the FAA is taking time to cover all the issues identified in the petition for an exemption.

The weight exemption request drew comments from AOPA, EAA, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association, corporations, and others.

[floatsflyer]

Had a conversation with an aircraft maintenance engineer 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 certain existing sources, 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:

1. Build to current LSA certification standards

2. Build the plane as it currently stands to FAR 21.24 Primary Category Type Certification. This is the most viable and sensible direction to pursue 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.(S-LSA is not recognized in many countries).

http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.c ... egory.html

3. Manufacture both models so they don't lose their new sport flying recreational/adventure sports consumer market. This would be the best business model.

All this could be moot when they receive the excemption. The second delay for the FAA decision at the end of 2012 has come and gone. We are well into the new year and there has been no update on the status of decision making. Does anyone have any real insider info on the status of the excemption request?

[jnmeade]

Who are you?
Your link is broken. Is it:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/ai ... t/primary/

[floatsflyer]

Sorry 'bout that, hope this works for you:

http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.c ... egory.html


I have edited my original post with the above link, thanks

[cyriaque]

Since I'm new here, my question may be redundant. What is the FAA's opposition to including the C150/152 in LSA category? Beside just the weight factor.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[drseti]

stall speeds also.

Precisely. Clean stall has to be below 45 KCAS. It's true that at Flaps 0, the C150 indicates below 45 kts in the stall. But in that high angle of attack, the pitot tube is skewed vertically with respect to the airflow, so the ASI reads quite low, and the actual (calibrated) stall speed significantly exceeds the LSA limit.

[MrMorden]

One thing I find very interesting about Icon is that unlike other manufacturers, you NEVER see their company reps in online forums answering questions, clearing up misconceptions, explaining their design philosophy, etc.

It almost seems like the company does better with the aviation community only having vague assumptions and speculation to judge by...

[CTLSi]

......

[FastEddieB]

They had an impressive display at Oshkosh and a product with great potential.

I wish them well.

I do, however, remember full well the Eclipse display at Sun 'n' Fun a decade or so ago. They also really seemed to have their act together. But it was all smoke and mirrors, and a lot of people lost a lot of money on a pipe dream.

At least from that dream an apparently viable company rose from the ashes, but even that remains to be seen long term.

[Check 6]

We (LISA Airplanes) came out of receivership in April with solid long-term funding. We exhibited again at Oshkosh this summer (2013) but we did not have an Akoya there this time because of a conflict with our flight test program.