OSH: Icon A5 presentation

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

and now for soemthing completely different:

the ICON A5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpNBNg4JzeQ

about 140AMUs

and boy, this is a cockpit from this century, not like most of the other
crap on the market.

#m

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-02, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> and boy, this is a cockpit from this century, not like most of the other
> crap on the market.

Too bad it's aggressively VFR-only and, as far as I could tell, completely
non-upgradeable - with a nonstandard instrument layout, *tiny* engine
gauges, one com radio, no nav radios, and a mode C transponder, and that's
it.

It suffers from a 2008 version of the 1940s tendency to try to make airplane
panels look like automobile dashboards. It didn't work then, and it doesn't
work now. Airplanes are not cars, and shouldn't try to act like them.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jay Maynard schrieb:
> On 2008-08-02, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> and boy, this is a cockpit from this century, not like most of the other
>> crap on the market.
>
> Too bad it's aggressively VFR-only and,

.... and it is a LSA, so I'd have no problem with this.

as far as I could tell, completely
> non-upgradeable - with a nonstandard instrument layout, *tiny* engine
> gauges, one com radio, no nav radios, and a mode C transponder, and that's
> it.

it is a LSA; weight matters. Out of the video: you can upgrade:
automatic wingfold, retrectable gear, parachute.

> It suffers from a 2008 version of the 1940s tendency to try to make airplane
> panels look like automobile dashboards. It didn't work then, and it doesn't
> work now. Airplanes are not cars, and shouldn't try to act like them.

I don't care about the car-design, but I like the modern and european look.

#m

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-02, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> Jay Maynard schrieb:
>> On 2008-08-02, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>>> and boy, this is a cockpit from this century, not like most of the other
>>> crap on the market.
>> Too bad it's aggressively VFR-only and,
> ... and it is a LSA, so I'd have no problem with this.

Who says an LSA has to be VFR-only? Mine's not.

>> as far as I could tell, completely non-upgradeable - with a nonstandard
>> instrument layout, *tiny* engine gauges, one com radio, no nav radios,
>> and a mode C transponder, and that's it.
> it is a LSA; weight matters. Out of the video: you can upgrade:
> automatic wingfold, retrectable gear, parachute.

And still a fixed, non-upgradeable panel. What happens when ADS-B is
required? (This will happen one day, hopefully in a better form than the FAA
tried the first time.)

>> It suffers from a 2008 version of the 1940s tendency to try to make airplane
>> panels look like automobile dashboards. It didn't work then, and it doesn't
>> work now. Airplanes are not cars, and shouldn't try to act like them.
> I don't care about the car-design, but I like the modern and european look.

The "modern, European look" is intended to look like a Porsche or BMW. Car.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jay Maynard schrieb:
>> I don't care about the car-design, but I like the modern and european look.
>
> The "modern, European look" is intended to look like a Porsche or BMW. Car.

this is OK for me; I don't like the Cessna et-al desgins.

#m

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-02, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> Jay Maynard schrieb:
>>> I don't care about the car-design, but I like the modern and european look.
>> The "modern, European look" is intended to look like a Porsche or BMW. Car.
> this is OK for me; I don't like the Cessna et-al desgins.

Form follows function. ICON got it backwards.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jay Maynard schrieb:
>> this is OK for me; I don't like the Cessna et-al desgins.
>
> Form follows function. ICON got it backwards.

what's not OK for you out of the ICOM functions? IMHO it is a pure
recreational "tool", comparable to a quad, or a jetski(?), etc.; the
main "use" is for having fun, flying for a $100 burger, ...

it flies and floats (well, then you should rather rent than buy *gggg*).

#m

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-02, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> Jay Maynard schrieb:
>>> this is OK for me; I don't like the Cessna et-al desgins.
>> Form follows function. ICON got it backwards.
> what's not OK for you out of the ICOM functions? IMHO it is a pure
> recreational "tool", comparable to a quad, or a jetski(?), etc.; the
> main "use" is for having fun, flying for a $100 burger, ...

If I'm going to spend $150K on an airplane, it's going to be used, and
useful, for more than just flying around for fun. It's a transportation
tool.

The A5 is aimed at the guy who'd buy a Cigarette boat, not at the pilot who
wants to go places.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jay Maynard schrieb:
> If I'm going to spend $150K on an airplane,

well, $150K is now not that much any more than it was earlier, the
exchange rate is in our favour.

> it's going to be used, and
> useful, for more than just flying around for fun. It's a transportation
> tool.

hmm, if I'd buy a flying transportation tool it would be something like
a D-Jet or a DA-42, but nothing like a C172 or similar.

> The A5 is aimed at the guy who'd buy a Cigarette boat, not at the pilot who
> wants to go places.

Or at the recreational pilot, flying with +1 for fun (still going
places, but VFR, though).

#m

[Blueskies]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message ...
> and now for soemthing completely different:
>
> the ICON A5
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpNBNg4JzeQ
>
> about 140AMUs
>
> and boy, this is a cockpit from this century, not like most of the other
> crap on the market.
>
> #m

It is a very nice plane. It will be interesting to see if they can hold that price point.

[Blueskies]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message ...
> On 2008-08-02, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> Jay Maynard schrieb:
>>>> I don't care about the car-design, but I like the modern and european look.
>>> The "modern, European look" is intended to look like a Porsche or BMW. Car.
>> this is OK for me; I don't like the Cessna et-al desgins.
>
> Form follows function. ICON got it backwards.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

It has an AOA indicator front and center, great tool for landing (alighting?) on glass smooth water...

[Little Luke]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:53:58 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:

> Too bad it's aggressively VFR-only and, as far as I could tell, completely
> non-upgradeable - with a nonstandard instrument layout, *tiny* engine
> gauges, one com radio, no nav radios, and a mode C transponder, and that's
> it.
>
> It suffers from a 2008 version of the 1940s tendency to try to make airplane
> panels look like automobile dashboards. It didn't work then, and it doesn't
> work now. Airplanes are not cars, and shouldn't try to act like them.

Outside of that, you ****ing loved it, right?
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote
>
> Who says an LSA has to be VFR-only? Mine's not.

That brings an interesting subject to mind.

If an aircraft is certified through the LSA process instead of the more
rigorous part 23 certification process, and the LSA is VFR only, can one of
these LSA certified planes fly in IMC or IFR?
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-03, Morgans > wrote:
> If an aircraft is certified through the LSA process instead of the more
> rigorous part 23 certification process, and the LSA is VFR only, can one of
> these LSA certified planes fly in IMC or IFR?

The POH, and probably a panel placard, will say "VFR only".

Is it a violation to operate an aircraft in violation of the POH?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Peter Dohm]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-08-02, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> Jay Maynard schrieb:
>>>> this is OK for me; I don't like the Cessna et-al desgins.
>>> Form follows function. ICON got it backwards.
>> what's not OK for you out of the ICOM functions? IMHO it is a pure
>> recreational "tool", comparable to a quad, or a jetski(?), etc.; the
>> main "use" is for having fun, flying for a $100 burger, ...
>
> If I'm going to spend $150K on an airplane, it's going to be used, and
> useful, for more than just flying around for fun. It's a transportation
> tool.
>
> The A5 is aimed at the guy who'd buy a Cigarette boat, not at the pilot
> who
> wants to go places.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

Jay, I'm solidly in your camp with my preferences for what an airplane
should be and do, and for its need to be easily ugardable in the future; but
your "Cigarette boat" comment suggests to me that the ICON A5, complete with
its "all sizzle, no steak" marketing hype, might be a financial success--if
they can keep the project on schedule.

Just my $0.02 :-(
Peter

[Blueskies]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message ...
> On 2008-08-03, Morgans > wrote:
>> If an aircraft is certified through the LSA process instead of the more
>> rigorous part 23 certification process, and the LSA is VFR only, can one of
>> these LSA certified planes fly in IMC or IFR?
>
> The POH, and probably a panel placard, will say "VFR only".
>
> Is it a violation to operate an aircraft in violation of the POH?
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)




LSAs can be night & IFR equipped, and if so, then a properly rated pilot can fly it IMC at night...

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote
>>
>> Who says an LSA has to be VFR-only? Mine's not.
>
> That brings an interesting subject to mind.
>
> If an aircraft is certified through the LSA process instead of the more
> rigorous part 23 certification process, and the LSA is VFR only, can one
> of these LSA certified planes fly in IMC or IFR?
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Interesting question. My best guess is that it would not be permitted to
fly under IFR at night; because the Rotax 912 is not certified to a standard
compatible with night IFR. Day IFR is another issue, and one on which I can
not even guess.

Peter

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> My best guess is that it would not be permitted to
> fly under IFR at night; because the Rotax 912 is not certified to a standard
> compatible with night IFR.

huh? What's the night IFR standard for a certified engine?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> Jay, I'm solidly in your camp with my preferences for what an airplane
> should be and do, and for its need to be easily ugardable in the future;
> but your "Cigarette boat" comment suggests to me that the ICON A5,
> complete with its "all sizzle, no steak" marketing hype, might be a
> financial success--if they can keep the project on schedule.

Yes, and avoid spending all of the startup (investment) money before the
project becomes self sustaining.

I don't know about everyone else, but it about breaks my heart to see good
people bring a project (like designing and marketing an airplane or jet)
almost to the finish line, then run out of money. Then, the choice is to
sell the company and lose control, and see your dream brought to completion
by someone else with the money to finish up the last 10% of the job, or give
up.

Sad, but it seems to happen far too often in aviation.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-08-03, Morgans > wrote:
>> If an aircraft is certified through the LSA process instead of the more
>> rigorous part 23 certification process, and the LSA is VFR only, can one
>> of
>> these LSA certified planes fly in IMC or IFR?
>
> The POH, and probably a panel placard, will say "VFR only".
>
> Is it a violation to operate an aircraft in violation of the POH?

But what if it is equipped to fly IFR? Can one be certified by LSA instead
of part 23?
--
Jim in NC

[Bob]

"Morgans" wrote
> But what if it is equipped to fly IFR? Can one be certified by LSA
> instead of part 23?

Sport Pilot News > News Archive
10/13/05 - SPECIAL LSA AND NIGHT/IFR FLYING

Some confusion exists in the aviation marketplace regarding the use of
special light-sport aircraft (S-LSA) for flying at night and/or under
instrument flight rules (IFR). The ASTM consensus standards that govern
the manufacture and production of S-LSA specifically address day/visual
flight rules (VFR) operations only.

First, sport pilots, or those exercising sport pilot privileges, are
restricted from flying at night or in IFR conditions, so they may not
operate an S-LSA, or any aircraft, at those times.

Other properly rated pilots may fly an S-LSA in those conditions if
allowed per the aircraft’s operating limitations and if it is equipped
per FAR 91.205. Additionally, FAR 91.327(d) requires all S-LSA to be
operated in accordance with the aircraft’s operating instructions. An
aircraft’s operating instructions are different from operating
limitations; operating instructions are issued by manufacturers—engine,
airframe, and accessory—while operating limitations are issued by the
FAA.

Many S-LSA are equipped with Rotax engines. Rotax’s operating
instructions prohibit the use of a Rotax engine at night or in IFR
conditions unless it is the FAA type-certificated engine; that is,
certificated to FAR Part 33. Rotax’s non-certificated engines are
indicated by the letters “UL” after the engine series number; for
example, 912UL, 912ULS, and 914UL.

Additionally, S-LSA airframe and engine manufacturers may place
restrictions against the use of their aircraft and/or engines for
night/IFR operations. For example, other S-LSA are powered by Jabiru
engines; these engines are certificated to JAR-22H and are limited to
day/VFR operation.

Bottom line: some S-LSA can be equipped for night and IFR operation; be
sure to tell the manufacturer/dealer if your intent is to operate the
aircraft under those conditions…and make sure you have the proper
ratings.

For more information, call EAA’s Aviation Service at 888/EAA-INFO (322-
4636) or e-mail .

[RST Engineering]

Certificated!!
Certificated!!

/certified/

{;-)

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote
>>
>> Who says an LSA has to be VFR-only? Mine's not.
>
> That brings an interesting subject to mind.
>
> If an aircraft is certified through the LSA process instead of the more
> rigorous part 23 certification process, and the LSA is VFR only, can one
> of these LSA certified planes fly in IMC or IFR?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 2, 7:27 am, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> Who says an LSA has to be VFR-only? Mine's not.
>

In the video the guy made it very clear that they are targeting people
with the sport pilot license. In fact, he went so far as to say that
it is the very existence of the Sport Pilot rule that makes his
company possible.

That being said, I do not see what is so exciting about this plane
that I would shell out 150K for it (not that I have that kind of money
anyway). There doesn't seem to be anything particularly "game
changing" about it. I do like the amphibious capability though; being
able to take off on land and land on water (and visa versa) would be
pretty handy.

[Blueskies]

"Rocky Stevens" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 2, 7:27 am, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> Who says an LSA has to be VFR-only? Mine's not.
>>
>
> In the video the guy made it very clear that they are targeting people
> with the sport pilot license. In fact, he went so far as to say that
> it is the very existence of the Sport Pilot rule that makes his
> company possible.
>
> That being said, I do not see what is so exciting about this plane
> that I would shell out 150K for it (not that I have that kind of money
> anyway). There doesn't seem to be anything particularly "game
> changing" about it. I do like the amphibious capability though; being
> able to take off on land and land on water (and visa versa) would be
> pretty handy.



It reminds me of a SeaBee

[Morgans[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote
....
> Certificated!!
> Certificated!!
>
> /certified/

I'll try to remember that, but...
No promises! <ggg>

My brain cavity seems to be rather empty at times, as of late! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote

> My brain cavity seems to be rather empty at times, as of late! ;-)

P.S. I just married off my last kid, my son, last night.

We threw quite the party! I haven't gotten out of second gear yet, today.
;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> the ICON A5

One for the marketing department:

At OSH they hired a sky-writer to write "ICON A5" over the Airventure
grounds. It looked great -- but everyone (myself included) thought that the
pilot was simply misspelling "ICOM A5" -- which is one of ICOM's hand-held
models.

We chuckled about it all week -- and now we find out that they were really
advertising a new airplane!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> P.S. I just married off my last kid, my son, last night.

Congrats, Jim!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Vaughn Simon]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> P.S. I just married off my last kid, my son, last night.
>
> We threw quite the party! I haven't gotten out of second gear yet, today.

Do not fear the empty nest. For one thing, once our kid was out of the
house, we were amazed at how much pocket money we suddeny had. We had no idea
we were spending that much money to support someone who already was getting a
regular paycheck.

Vaughn

[Paul Riley]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> P.S. I just married off my last kid, my son, last night.
>>
>> We threw quite the party! I haven't gotten out of second gear yet,
>> today.
>
> Do not fear the empty nest. For one thing, once our kid was out of the
> house, we were amazed at how much pocket money we suddeny had. We had no
> idea we were spending that much money to support someone who already was
> getting a regular paycheck.
>
> Vaughn
>

Wake up call.

Just wait until he and his bride show up on the front porch, saying they are
moving back in for awhile until they can "get established".

OR, call and say they need a loan of a "few thousand" to "tide them over"

You say it won't happen?? I hope you are right. But don't bet your
retirement fund on it!! Been there, done that!!!

Paul

[John Clear]

In article <jYnlk.227768$TT4.225382@attbi_s22>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> the ICON A5
>
>One for the marketing department:
>
>At OSH they hired a sky-writer to write "ICON A5" over the Airventure
>grounds. It looked great -- but everyone (myself included) thought that the
>pilot was simply misspelling "ICOM A5" -- which is one of ICOM's hand-held
>models.

When I saw the subject of the thread, I mis-read it in the same
way, and it was a few messages in before I figured out it was about
a plane and not a radio.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[john smith]

In article >,
Jay Maynard > wrote:

> It suffers from a 2008 version of the 1940s tendency to try to make airplane
> panels look like automobile dashboards. It didn't work then, and it doesn't
> work now. Airplanes are not cars, and shouldn't try to act like them.

That was exactly my thought when I saw it.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-03, Blueskies > wrote:
> LSAs can be night & IFR equipped, and if so, then a properly rated pilot
> can fly it IMC at night...

As I commented earlier in the thread, mine is fully IFR certified. The
placard on the panel says "Day Night VFR or IFR in Non Icing Conditions".
There's a whole section in the POH on IFR operations.

As it happens, there are exactly two SLSAs that do not have a limitation in
the POH prohibiting IFR operations: the Tecnam Bravo/Sierra and the AMD
Zodiac.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-03, Peter Dohm > wrote:
> Interesting question. My best guess is that it would not be permitted to
> fly under IFR at night; because the Rotax 912 is not certified to a standard
> compatible with night IFR. Day IFR is another issue, and one on which I can
> not even guess.

The Rotax 912S is fully FAR 33 certificated. It's only the ULS that isn't
(and has a limitation for day VFR only in its manual).

Not all LSAs use the Rotax, however. That's one big reason I went with the
Zodiac: it uses a bog standard O-200-A.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-08-03, Blueskies > wrote:
>> LSAs can be night & IFR equipped, and if so, then a properly rated pilot
>> can fly it IMC at night...
>
> As I commented earlier in the thread, mine is fully IFR certified. The
> placard on the panel says "Day Night VFR or IFR in Non Icing Conditions".
> There's a whole section in the POH on IFR operations.
>
> As it happens, there are exactly two SLSAs that do not have a limitation
> in
> the POH prohibiting IFR operations: the Tecnam Bravo/Sierra and the AMD
> Zodiac.

You have a Rotax engine, right?

How can it be certified for what you have said, if the engine is not
certified for those conditions?

That is still missing the point of my question, though.

How can an airplane that is certificated by LSA, (a certification process
that is day VFR only) be allowed to be equal with those that went through
the full part 23 process?

I would think that if an airplane manufacturer wanted to fly in conditions
past the limitations of the LSA, they would be required to go through the
part 23 process. If they were to get the full approval for part 23, and it
met all of the qualifications for LSA, it then (of course) be allowed to be
flown as a LSA, by a LS pilot.

See what I mean? It seems like a loop-hole that should not exist. I am all
for less regulations and restrictions, but this is one area I must question
as whether it is fair to all, or not.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-08-03, Peter Dohm > wrote:
>> Interesting question. My best guess is that it would not be permitted to
>> fly under IFR at night; because the Rotax 912 is not certified to a
>> standard
>> compatible with night IFR. Day IFR is another issue, and one on which I
>> can
>> not even guess.
>
> The Rotax 912S is fully FAR 33 certificated. It's only the ULS that isn't
> (and has a limitation for day VFR only in its manual).
>
> Not all LSAs use the Rotax, however. That's one big reason I went with the
> Zodiac: it uses a bog standard O-200-A.

OK, that answers one question of my previous post. I still wonder how the
LSA process can give higher approval than the limitations of said
classification.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote

> Not all LSAs use the Rotax, however. That's one big reason I went with the
> Zodiac: it uses a bog standard O-200-A.

By the way, good choice with not using a Rotax.

I have not, nor will I ever get into the air behind a Rotax.

Many will say they are a wonderful, reliable engine. Perhaps, but my gut is
that I do not trust them with my life.

My personal choice. It is not likely to change.

Why? The company makes too much other junk. Not 4-cycles, but junk just
the same.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
>> My best guess is that it would not be permitted to
>> fly under IFR at night; because the Rotax 912 is not certified to a
>> standard
>> compatible with night IFR.
>
> huh? What's the night IFR standard for a certified engine?
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)
>
I couldn't remember it at the time of my post, but someone else did--part
33. And IIRC, it's part 35 for the prop.

Peter
(OK, but this was short enough to avoid the scissors)

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

>
> Yes, and avoid spending all of the startup (investment) money before the
> project becomes self sustaining.
>
> I don't know about everyone else, but it about breaks my heart to see good
> people bring a project (like designing and marketing an airplane or jet)
> almost to the finish line, then run out of money. Then, the choice is to
> sell the company and lose control, and see your dream brought to
> completion by someone else with the money to finish up the last 10% of the
> job, or give up.
>
> Sad, but it seems to happen far too often in aviation.
> --
> Jim in NC
I believe that it happens in everything. We are interested in aviation, so
we are more aware of the problem in aviation. The certification process may
make the initial startup a little worse, but the higher threshold of entry
should also make the next phase a little easier.

Peter

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-04, Morgans > wrote:
> You have a Rotax engine, right?

No. The AMD Zodiac uses an O-200-A, fully certificated, just like the one
you'll find on the average 150.

> How can an airplane that is certificated by LSA, (a certification process
> that is day VFR only) be allowed to be equal with those that went through
> the full part 23 process?

Because the LSA certification rule says that the aircraft may be used for
anything that's in the POH. Check out the AOPA's statement on the subject
at http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_faq.html#aircraft ...and
the EAA says the same thing.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-04, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-08-04, Morgans > wrote:
>> How can an airplane that is certificated by LSA, (a certification process
>> that is day VFR only) be allowed to be equal with those that went through
>> the full part 23 process?
> Because the LSA certification rule says that the aircraft may be used for
> anything that's in the POH. Check out the AOPA's statement on the subject
> at http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_faq.html#aircraft ...and
> the EAA says the same thing.

I'll also note that it's perfectly legal to fly an experimental-amateur
built aircraft IFR, even if it's got a Rotax or Jabiru or automobile
conversion engine and a homemade prop. With that being true, why shouldn't
a SLSA be able to fly IFR?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-04, Morgans > wrote:
> By the way, good choice with not using a Rotax.
>
> I have not, nor will I ever get into the air behind a Rotax.
>
> Many will say they are a wonderful, reliable engine. Perhaps, but my gut is
> that I do not trust them with my life.

I can see your point. Personally, I've got no particular problem with flying
behind one; the 912's record seems no worse than any other aircraft engine,
and there are a lot of them flying. My choice was more related to
maintenance: I wanted an engine any A&P could deal with without having to go
to a special school.

OTOH, the certificated version of the 912, the 912S (which *is* allowed to
fly night and IFR by Rotax), loses all of the 912ULS's cost advantage over
the O-200. There are very few differences between the two - and an $8000
difference in price.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2008-08-03, Peter Dohm > wrote:
>>> Interesting question. My best guess is that it would not be permitted to
>>> fly under IFR at night; because the Rotax 912 is not certified to a
>>> standard
>>> compatible with night IFR. Day IFR is another issue, and one on which I
>>> can
>>> not even guess.
>> The Rotax 912S is fully FAR 33 certificated. It's only the ULS that isn't
>> (and has a limitation for day VFR only in its manual).
>>
>> Not all LSAs use the Rotax, however. That's one big reason I went with the
>> Zodiac: it uses a bog standard O-200-A.
>
> OK, that answers one question of my previous post. I still wonder how the
> LSA process can give higher approval than the limitations of said
> classification.


Because the IFR certification process and the airframe certification
process are separate.

[Rocky Stevens]

On Aug 3, 10:54 am, Rocky Stevens > wrote:
> I do like the amphibious capability though; being
> able to take off on land and land on water (and visa versa) would be
> pretty handy.

The more I think about this, the more I like the amphib idea. I did
some searching and only found one existing amphib LSA; The Mermaid.
Does anyone know anything about this aircraft? The ability to land on
the water would not only be very convenient, but it would also seem to
be a great safety feature. I live in NYC and for trips out to the
island it would not be too hard to always stay within gliding distance
of the water; it could be like a huge alternate landing spot.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Rocky Stevens wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:54 am, Rocky Stevens > wrote:
>> I do like the amphibious capability though; being
>> able to take off on land and land on water (and visa versa) would be
>> pretty handy.
>
> The more I think about this, the more I like the amphib idea. I did
> some searching and only found one existing amphib LSA; The Mermaid.
> Does anyone know anything about this aircraft? The ability to land on
> the water would not only be very convenient, but it would also seem to
> be a great safety feature. I live in NYC and for trips out to the
> island it would not be too hard to always stay within gliding distance
> of the water; it could be like a huge alternate landing spot.

Re: the Mermaid. It is built by CZAW and they have some issues pending.
I'd look into that before I went any further.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote
>
> Because the IFR certification process and the airframe certification
> process are separate.

Yes, I know, but I still don't see how it got passed with allowing a VFR
classification aircraft certified through consensus standards to be legal to
fly IFR. It seems like it would not give the major aircraft manufacturer any
reason to want to build a light aircraft and have to go though part 23.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote

: the Mermaid. It is built by CZAW and they have some issues pending.
> I'd look into that before I went any further.

Really? I had not heard of any issues with the Mermaid. Care to share?
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote
>
> : the Mermaid. It is built by CZAW and they have some issues pending.
>> I'd look into that before I went any further.
>
> Really? I had not heard of any issues with the Mermaid. Care to share?

No because what I've heard and read are secondhand at best and I don't
repeat that stuff. The issues weren't with they any aircraft CZAW makes
but with the company itself.

It's been a while. Maybe the problems have cleared themselves or never were.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote
>> Because the IFR certification process and the airframe certification
>> process are separate.
>
> Yes, I know, but I still don't see how it got passed with allowing a VFR
> classification aircraft certified through consensus standards to be legal to
> fly IFR. It seems like it would not give the major aircraft manufacturer any
> reason to want to build a light aircraft and have to go though part 23.

It's Monday and that may be the reason but I don't fully understand what
you are asking. An LSA can fly IFR for the same reason an EX-HB can be
IFR. It ain't the airplane it's the panel (and some other stuff).

A major manufacturer would still want a fully certified plane because
they want to sell something that goes faster than 120kts, weighs more
than 1320 lbs and/or any of the other limitations on LSA.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message

> It's Monday and that may be the reason but I don't fully understand what
> you are asking. An LSA can fly IFR for the same reason an EX-HB can be
> IFR. It ain't the airplane it's the panel (and some other stuff).
>
> A major manufacturer would still want a fully certified plane because they
> want to sell something that goes faster than 120kts, weighs more than 1320
> lbs and/or any of the other limitations on LSA.

When you put it that way, with a HB flying IFR, I have to admit that it
makes a little more sense, but not much.

The whole thing behind LSA was to get lots of inexpensive planes in the air,
with less rigorous certification processes. They were to have restrictions
on when and how they were to fly.

IFR does not fall into the mission stated for the new class. So, why do
they not have to go though the more rigorous part 23 certification process?
You could still have a new plane certified part 23, and with the correct top
speed and stall speeds and gross weight, it would still be legal for a LSP
to fly it.

I know, it is legal to let a LSA fly IFR because it is.

It just surprises me, though.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> >> My best guess is that it would not be permitted to
> >> fly under IFR at night; because the Rotax 912 is not certified to a
> >> standard
> >> compatible with night IFR.
> >
> > huh? What's the night IFR standard for a certified engine?
> >
> I couldn't remember it at the time of my post, but someone else did--part
> 33. And IIRC, it's part 35 for the prop.

Is there a particular part of Part 33 that is applicable to night IFR?
I searched for "IFR", "night", a "instrument" without finding any
specific certification standards for night IFR.

What engine certification standard would be compatible with Day VFR
and *not* also be compatible night IFR?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
>>>> My best guess is that it would not be permitted to
>>>> fly under IFR at night; because the Rotax 912 is not certified to a
>>>> standard
>>>> compatible with night IFR.
>>> huh? What's the night IFR standard for a certified engine?
>>>
>> I couldn't remember it at the time of my post, but someone else did--part
>> 33. And IIRC, it's part 35 for the prop.
>
> Is there a particular part of Part 33 that is applicable to night IFR?
> I searched for "IFR", "night", a "instrument" without finding any
> specific certification standards for night IFR.
>
> What engine certification standard would be compatible with Day VFR
> and *not* also be compatible night IFR?
>

Rotax themselves made the engine in question unqualified for night by
stating that the engine was for Day VFR only.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:

> Rotax themselves made the engine in question unqualified for night by
> stating that the engine was for Day VFR only.

Does anyone know if there was a technical reason for the restriction?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>
>> Rotax themselves made the engine in question unqualified for night by
>> stating that the engine was for Day VFR only.
>
> Does anyone know if there was a technical reason for the restriction?
>

The general feeling on the Rotax boards that I was reading at the time
(I was considering one for my 601XL) was that it was pure CYA for liability.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-07, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Bob Noel wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>>> Rotax themselves made the engine in question unqualified for night by
>>> stating that the engine was for Day VFR only.
>> Does anyone know if there was a technical reason for the restriction?
> The general feeling on the Rotax boards that I was reading at the time
> (I was considering one for my 601XL) was that it was pure CYA for liability.

This seems reasonable, considering the few changes between the 912ULS and
the night, IFR-certificated 912S...it wouldn't surprise me to discover most
of the $8000 price difference between the two goes to a liability insurance
fund.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[ROBERT ALLAN \BOBBIE\ BEAR.M.D. (ex Vice Dean)]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:59:08 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote
>>
>>: the Mermaid. It is built by CZAW and they have some issues pending.
>>> I'd look into that before I went any further.
>>
>> Really? I had not heard of any issues with the Mermaid. Care to share?
>
> No because what I've heard and read are secondhand at best and I don't
> repeat that stuff. The issues weren't with they any aircraft CZAW makes
> but with the company itself.
>
> It's been a while. Maybe the problems have cleared themselves or never were.

In short, you're lying then.
--
Dr. Robert Bear, MD, FRCPC, (ex Vice Dean, Not James)
American Board of Internal Medicine & Nephrology Certification
Clinical trials, renal soiling, DEPENDS research,
Dialysis population, no boners research
Euthanasia Certified; Uncontrolled ****ing Expert
Telephone 780-407-7239; Fax 780-407-7771